Sinoe Senator Lawyerly Decodes House Power Feud -Says No Victor in S/C Edict, Picks Bone with Boakai

MONROVIA – While a lot of politicians, self-proclaimed scholars and ordinary Liberians are still wallowing in intellectual darkness over the recent decision by a Supreme Chambers Judge, particularly regarding the meaning, implications, ramifications and effects of his edict to throw out the writ of prohibition asking mutiny members of the House of representatives to return to status quo ante, a Liberian lawyer and senator in the 55^th National Legislature has provided insightful legal enlightenment.

Commenting on the matter on his social media page, Sinoe County Senator Augustine S. Chea wondered, as depicted in the title of his opinion piece, “Why was the budget not submitted to the Speaker?”, over reasons President Joseph Boakai could not write and present government’s 2025 fiscal budget to Speaker J. Fonati Koffa but rather to the Chief Clerk and by extension to “wayward lawmaker”.

Chea parred the communication signed by the Acting Minister of State and addressed to the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives instead of the Speaker, on the “postponement of submission of the national budget for FY 2025” with the days of former Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf era’s constitutional breaches in previous House Speakers’ removal.

The Sinoe County Senator who is an astute lawywer opined that President Boakai’s apparent refusal to submit the budget to Speaker Koffa is not only a clear disregard for the Speaker’s constitutional authority but “has drawn the Presidency directly into the conflict” at the House of Representatives.

“So, what is in Chamber Justice Gbeisay’s ruling on Speaker Koffa’s petition for a writ of prohibition that the President is relying on or is not clear about?,” Cllr. Chea quipped.

Dissenting Prohibition Writ’s Logic, Outcome

On the intricases of the Speaker Koffa’s writ of prohibition asking to end parallel sessions and activities of the “majority bloc” of lawyers, the Sinoe County lawmaker wrote: “Let me say at the outset that the Speaker was in error for filing the writ, because the Supreme Court could not do what he asked or prayed for; that is, to prohibit the so-called majority bloc from ‘conducting sessions’ in the Joint Chamber instead of the main Chamber, because this is a political, and not a legal, issue and falls squarely within the political question doctrine.

What the Justice did by refusing to grant the writ of prohibition is telling the parties that the matter is not appropriate for judicial review as it is more suitable for resolution by that political branch of the government (the Legislature), he said.

“The doctrine is rooted in the separation of powers, as it aims to respect the distinct roles of each branch and avoid judicial overreach. The dispute between the Speaker and those seeking to oust him, as it is now, is political, rather than legal.”

Chea also said the Justice’s refusal to grant the writ was simply to tell the parties that this is a political matter; don’t get the court involved; go and settle it by yourselves.

“Why? Because the Speaker did not present a legal or justiciable issue to the Supreme Court to decide,” Chea continued.

As for examples, that he had been removed as Speaker illegally; or that the ‘majority bloc’ had occupied the main Chamber and prevented him from presiding, or for other legal reasons. Let me make it clear also that the refusal to grant the writ is not a win for the ‘majority bloc’ either. So, there is nothing to celebrate here.”

According to the lawyering Senator, Speaker Koffa is still the legitimate Speaker until removed by the ‘two-thirds majority’ mandated by the constitution. The only thing the Speaker cannot do legally is to hold sessions, as he does not have the constitutional quorum to do so.

“Similarly, the ‘majority bloc’ cannot hold sessions without the Speaker, because he has the authority to convene and preside over sessions. The Deputy Speaker is without any authority to preside if not authorized by the Speaker, except the Speaker is incapacitated by illness, death, or if he is absent from the country or absent from a session.”

He sermonized the Liberian Cosntitution, calling attention to Article 49: “The House of Representatives shall elect once every six years a Speaker who shall be the presiding officer of that body, a Deputy Speaker, and such other officers as shall ensure the proper functioning of the House.”

Senator Chea tutored his followers, stating that the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and other officers so elected may be removed from office for cause by resolution of a two-thirds majority of the members of the House. As simple as that. Also, the refusal to grant the prohibition neither illegitimizes Speaker Koffa nor legitimizes the anti-Koffa bloc. It is also important to note that the constitution neither recognizes a ‘majority bloc’ nor a ‘minority bloc’ of the House of Representatives.”

He further indicated that what the constitution recognizes and requires is that there must be a majority (37 Reps) to hold sessions under the authority of the Speaker, and that there must be a two-thirds majority (49 Reps) to remove the Speaker; and that the removal must adhere to fundamental due process (Article 20 (a) of the constitution).

“Furthermore, it is a regular session, i.e., a session convened by the Speaker himself or by his authority, that can, without a quorum, adjourn from time to time or session to session and compel the attendance of the absent members,” said the Sinoe legislator.

“The ‘majority bloc’ has no legal authority to hold sessions and, therefore, cannot compel others to attend or to receive and act upon legislative instruments. And as they are not sitting or conducting legislative business legally, they cannot execute their legislative functions, including oversight.”

In Chea’s opinion, therefore, “the Executive and the Judicial Branches and the Senate must not do business with them, but with the Speaker. The President should submit the budget to the Speaker as required by law, to be acted upon when the Speaker has a quorum to hold sessions. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.”