MONROVIA – Magnitude and toll which the House of Representatives leadership crisis has had on national governance and the social and political cohesions in the country provoked collateral public reactions when the Supreme Court last week made clearer its earlier ruling in the case. Every Liberian and Liberian group have tried to make their perspectives heard – lawyers as well as non-lawyers, politicians as well as non-politicians, at home as well as abroad. True to its promise released immediately after the ruling that it was critically studying the merits and demerits of the Supreme Court’s clarified opinion, and that it would come out with its position, Liberian lawyers’ umbrella organization, the Liberia National Bar Association, did yesterday. But sooner the press conference at which it presented its position statement yesterday, April 29, then broke out a tornado of outrage from the public, some calling the professional organization compromised and partisan. The Analyst reports.
When the Liberian National Bar Association last week announced that it was scrutinizing the more clarified version of the Supreme Court judgment in the case involving factions fighting over House Speakership, many Liberians were bracing themselves, perhaps mistakenly that the High Court would further be defended and emboldened in its position by a fellow ‘rule of law’ stakeholder in the country. But that was not the case. The LNBA sees it differently, opining that the Court erred – a counter opinion that invoked backlashes from sections of the Liberian public.
It a statement read at a press conference Tuesday, April 28, the LNBA asserted that “the Supreme Court erred by allowing informants in the proceeding to use the office of the Bill of Information to have the Supreme Court issued a second Opinion and Judgement in the same constitutionality Case, which is very different from the first Opinion in the same case”.
According to the group, the decision of the Court to declare sittings or actions of the ‘Majority Bloc’ (respondents) to the exclusion of Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, the duly qualified Presiding Officer of the House of Representatives, while he is present and available to preside, is unconstitutional and without the pale of the law”
The LNBA recalled that in the Court’s April 23, 2025 Opinion and Judgment, it said that “… any sittings or actions of the ‘Majority Bloc’ (respondents) to the exclusion of Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, the duly qualified Presiding Officer of the House of Representatives, while he is present and available to preside, is unconstitutional and without the pale of the law. The LNBA emphatically states that if the sittings of the Majority Bloc are illegal, obviously then the 2025 National Budget is illegal and all persons who participated in the process and/or have benefitted from the process are guilty of having participated in an illegal process and facilitated the consummation of its illegality.
The LNBA said it believes that the Supreme Court has indicted itself of committing a very serious offense under the circumstance that is why it is important that the Supreme Court quickly reconsiders its Opinion and Judgment and expunge itself from this embarrassment.
“Moreover, the Supreme Court’s Opinion and Judgment constitute judicial overreach into matters exclusively reserved by the Constitution to the House of Representatives; and this violates the Separation of Powers doctrine – the cornerstone of a Republican form of government,” said the Liberian lawyers group, adding that it shall not condone legislative overreach in matters reserved by the 1986 Constitution to the Judiciary.
“Similarly, the LNBA shall not idly observe judicial overreach in matters reserved by the Constitution exclusively for the Legislature – matters such as determining who shall be the House of Representatives’ Speaker and how the Speaker may be removed from office for cause.
“This is simply a violation of the Political Question Doctrine,” said the lawyers Association.
Under Liberian law, the lawyers said, the ‘Political Question Doctrine’ is a principle rooted in constitutional interpretation that holds certain issues that are more appropriately addressed by the political branches of government (i.e., the Executive and Legislature) rather than the Judiciary.
This doctrine is derived from the doctrine of separation of powers, which is enshrined in Articles 2 and 3 of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia, it said.
The Liberian National Bar Association (LNBA), acknowledged the Supreme Court of Liberia’s recent ruling on the Amended Bill of Information filed by Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, saying it takes notes the April 23, 2025 Court’s opinion as a testament to the Court’s role in interpreting constitutional matters, the Bar respectfully disagrees with several key elements of the ruling.
The Bar said while it upholds the authority of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of constitutional and legal questions, “we are constrained to express our disagreement with the Court’s interpretation and its practical implications on the doctrine of separation of powers”, affirming that a Bill of Information, as a procedural tool, is designed to clarify the implementation of a judgment or bring to the Court’s attention issues affecting its mandate.
“It is not, and should not become, a substitute mechanism for settling inherently political questions—particularly those relating to the internal organization, leadership, or operational independence of the Legislature,” said the group.
According the LNBA the ongoing conflict within the House of Representatives is a matter that, though it may involve constitutional questions, is primarily political in nature, thus requiring a political resolution through institutional dialogue, consensus-building, and adherence to democratic norms.
While the Court may offer interpretative guidance on legal issues, the group added, the enforcement and implementation of its opinions in such matters depend heavily on political goodwill and respect for constitutional boundaries.
The LNBA said it was concerned that repeated reliance on the judiciary to resolve legislative disputes may erode public confidence in the independence of both branches of government and may set a troubling precedent where political actors abdicate their responsibility to resolve internal conflicts.
“Under Liberian jurisprudence and practice, a Bill of Information is intended to clarify or enforce a judgment where there is confusion or obstruction,” the LNBA continued.
While the Court’s decision to allow the Bill of Information was justified and procedurally correct given the confusion surrounding the meaning and application of its prior ruling of December 6, 2024, the LNBA said it observes that the Supreme Court expanded the function of the Bill of Information by re-asserting and elaborating its prior ruling, effectively issuing a new substantive decision rather than simply clarifying it.
The LNBA urged the Supreme Court not to allow what it called dangerous precedent, which will erode confidence in the governance of Liberia, to remain standing.
“Finally, the LNBA notes that should the Supreme Court fail to recall and reverse itself, thereby making the 2025 budget illegal, disbursements of salaries and payments made by the Executive for goods and services will be illegal and this will disrupt government operations and undermine the credibility of the State,” the lawyers’ umbrella group emphasized.
“Some might liken this to criminal subversion of the Government. The LNBA, as a critical institution responsible for the guidance of the State, calls on the Supreme Court to quickly move to avoid any calamity in Liberia, the impact of which will affect the stability of the country. This call is against the background of preserving public policy interest.”
Furry of Backlash
Hardly did inks get dried on reports of the LNBA press conference then social media and talk shows exploded with citizens’ angers and consternations form various quarters condemning the lawyers’ position.
Many expressed disappointments in the LNBA for its departure of the High Court’s ruling upholding the rule of law and nipping “mob justice” in the bud.
Others accused the president of the organization, a legislative candidate in the 2023 elections on the ticket of the ruling Unity Party in his home Gbarpolu County, for weaponizing the professional organization for political gains.
Said former representative Acarous Gray: “This Liberia Bar Association President looks like a pure UP surrogate and these are the people disgracing this very noble profession. He looks like Boakai’s son from Freetown.”
Also condemning the association was the youngest political party, Citizens Movement for Change (CMC) whose release essentially was a composite of most of the bitterness and ire expressed at various platforms in the country.
The ever-alert CMC said in an instant reaction it was deeply alarmed and gravely disappointed by recent statements attributed to the President of the Liberia National Bar Association (LNBA), which openly denigrate the Honorable Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia.
As an institution whose core mandate is to uphold, defend, and protect the rule of law, the Liberia National Bar Association must be the last entity to encourage defiance of judicial authority, the CMC said in a statement.
“Instead, we witnessed an appalling betrayal of those principles—an utter desecration of the very judicial integrity that the Bar is supposed to defend,” it added. “This disgraceful posture by the LNBA President not only undermines public confidence in our judiciary but poses a dangerous threat to our democracy.
“In moments such as these, silence is complicity. The CMC demands that the leadership and members of the Liberia National Bar Association immediately clarify whether this reckless statement reflects the official position of the Bar or is merely the personal view of its President.”
At a time when the country is seeking judicial stability, the CMC said “this unfortunate intervention has injected tension, disappointment, and confusion into our democratic space. The nation is weary. Our people are watching. Liberia cannot afford a legal profession that appears partisan, divided, or dismissive of the constitutional role of the courts.”
Comments are closed.