Speaker Koffa Heads Back to Supreme Court -Seeks Legal Relief Against Majority Bloc Violations of SC Ruling

MONROVIA – Embattled, disgraced by Executive actions, betrayed by members of the Upper House, stripped of his constitutional powers in the face of the Supreme Court recent decision for the Majority Bloc to return to status quo ante and cease all previous actions and sittings, Speaker J. Fonati Koffa has dug in his heels, refused to give in to demands for his resignation, and has returned to the Supreme Court with a Bill of Information against the leadership of the Majority Bloc and the Attorney General of Liberia, Justice Minister Oswald Tweh.

The Bill of Information, a copy of which is in possession of The Analyst was filed December 12, 2024 by Speaker J. Fonati Koffa and members of the House of Representatives of the 55^th Legislature (Informants), against Representative Richard N. Koon, Purported Speaker of the House of Representatives of the 55^th Legislature, Representative Thomas Fallah, Deputy Speaker of the House of Representative Members of the Self-styled Majority Bloc of the House of Representatives, the Executive Branch of the Government of Liberia, represented by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Republic of Liberia (Respondents).

In their Bill of Information, the Informants prayed for the Supreme Court to declare the actions of purported Speaker Koon and Members of the Majority Bloc null and void ab initio and sessions, hearings, or decisions are in violation of the Court’s Ruling and Final Judgment, ultra vires and unconstitutional.

The Informants also prayed that the Supreme Court further determine that actions of purported Speaker Koon and Deputy Speaker Thomas Fallah, and other Members of the Majority Bloc in defying the Court’s Ruling and Final Judgment, ultra vires and unconstitutional.

Proffering their third count, the Informants prayed for the Supreme Court to order the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Counselor N. Oswald Tweh to publicly recall his Opinion misinterpreting the Court’s December 6 Ruling.

Factual Background

Providing a backdrop to the legislative leadership crisis for which the apex court brought forth a ruling on December 6, 2024, the Informants, citing the case In Re: The constitutionality of certain actions taken by some members of the House of Representatives of the 55^th Legislature”, noted that the Court had stated unequivocally (that) whether a simple majority is sitting or a lower number, in both cases a presiding officer, defined in Article 49 of the Constitution is the Speaker, and in his/her absence the Deputy Speaker” must preside.

“And in the Final Judgment Your Honors that: “…any sittings or actions by members of the Legislature not in conformity with the intent of Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution are ultra vires. Hence, members of the House of Representatives are to conduct themselves accordingly. The Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to inform the parties. And it is hereby so ordered.

“In the Ruling, Your Honors held and determined that the sittings, decisions and actions that were previously taken by the self-styled Majority Bloc were ultra vires, i.e., unauthorized and therefore illegal. This included the unconstitutional removal of Speaker Koffa as Speaker and the purported “election” of Representative Koon as Speaker. In the Court’s Final Judgment, Your Honors ordered the Members to conduct themselves in compliance with both the quorum provisions or Article 33 as well as Article 49 which required the presence of the Speaker as the constitutional President Officer,” the Informants stated.

Violations of the Supreme Court’s Final Judgment

The Informants further indicated in their Bill that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Liberia, Counselor N. Oswald Tweh, the Government’s Chief Legal Officer, “has contributed to the Respondents’ violation of the Court’s Ruling by publicly issuing a legal opinion on December 10, 2024 addressed to the Minister of State for Presidential Affairs in which the Minister of Justice falsely asserted that Your Honors’ Ruling and Final Judgment concluded that the sittings, actions and decisions of the Majority Bloc were lawful. The action of the Minister of Justice has further exacerbated the situation.

“Informants submit that collectively the Respondents’ action undermines the authority of the Honorable Court, the framework of our constitutional system of government and the stability of the entire nation,” the Informants averred.

The Constitutional Role of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General

The Informants went on to provide an insight into the constitutional role of the Justice Minister and how he overstepped his authority by wrongfully advising the Executive, a situation that fueled the crisis at Capitol Hill.

“By supporting the Majority Bloc’s actions, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General has emboldened unconstitutional behavior and deepened the legislative crisis. In the case” In Re: Abayomi Cassell (1961) LRSC 22; 14 LLR 391 (1961) (19 May 1961), this Court of Liberia describes the proper constitutional role of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

“The Legislature is only primes inter pares with the other two branches of government; none is more important than the other; none can function without the others and still maintain the objectives of the Constitution; and none, in this sense, is either weakened or more potent than the others. The Judiciary is the anchor that holds stabilized government in balance; without it, vested interest might suffer, sacred rights might be violated, chaos could result. Although the Constitution and the law do not require the Attorney General to give advice either to the President or to any head of a department without previous request, nevertheless, in the proper performance of his duties, he should advise on any matters which adversely affect public rights, whether asked to do so or not. The Attorney General must prepare opinions on all issues at the moment or that involve public interest. However, these opinions might not be weighted in judicial decisions; they guide the government’s inappropriate and lawful administration. Whenever the constitutionality of a statute is challenged, the Supreme Court must test the statute as applied to a given case by the Constitution, and the Court’s decision on such an issue decides that issue for all time. If such a decision is against the statute, the law immediately loses its authority, usefulness, and validity and becomes a nullity. In such cases, there is no necessity for legislative repeal or removal from the statute books to affect the statute’s invalidity. This function also applies to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the actions of any of the branches of the Government. Of the members of the President’s cabinet, the Attorney General is the only one who might professionally or technically disagree in opinion with the President on any issue and be with the proper, proprietary, and legal performance of his duty; every other cabinet member must agree with the policy of the administration or resign. Any Attorney General who is either unable to or who fails to advise against any acts of government which, in  his opinion, infringe the constitutional rights of the citizens is useless to the administration and unfit to continue in office because he thereby fails to be that efficient legal adviser to the President and bold protector of the rights of the citizens which the law requires him to be.”

“This interpretation and principle expounded by the Supreme Court remains with the ages or our constitutional democracy and that the Attorney General is required to faithfully advise the Executive in upholding judicial supremacy in terms of interpretation of the law. To woefully and intentionally misguide the public and the Government to disrespect the Supreme Court’s ruling is indeed a dereliction of duty and contemptuous to the Supreme Court. In the instant case, the Attorney General internally disregarded the ruling and opinion of the Supreme Court.

Legal Basis for the Bill of Information

Citing a history of cases, the Informants established the legal for their contention. “In Majority UCL et al. v Minority UCL et al (1999) LRSC 36; 39 LLR 692 (1999) (16 December 1999), the Supreme Court held that: “Generally, Information before the Full Bench will lie and is the proper form of action where it grow out of a pending action before the Full Bench or where a matter had been decided by the Full Bench and the mandate from that place is being improperly executed by the lower court, or being impeded or obstructed by one or some of the parties,” the Informants opined.

Relief Sought

The Informants concluded in their Bill of Information by praying for the Honorable Supreme Court to declare the actions of purported Speaker Koon and Members of the Majority Bloc null and void ab initio and sessions, hearings, or decisions are in violation of the Court’s Ruling and Final Judgment, ultra vires and unconstitutional; further determine that actions of purported Speaker Koon and Deputy Speaker Thomas Fallah, and other Members of the Majority Bloc in defying the Court’s Ruling and Final Judgment, ultra vires and unconstitutional; and order the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Counselor N. Oswald Tweh, to publicly recall his Opinion misinterpreting this Court’s Ruling.