By Grace Q. Bryant
Article 33 of the Liberian Constitution states, “A lower number may adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members.”
Therefore, Speaker Fonati Koffa has announced that he will request a Writ of Mandamus from the court to compel all 43 of his colleagues who are gathering outside their regular plenary to return to session.
The ongoing political tensions at the House of Representatives (HOR) continue to toy with the very laws they were instructed to protect and strengthen and pay less attention to their cardinal legislative roles thereby wasting taxpayers’ resources.
Article 90 ‘C’ of the Constitution says, “Legislature shall prescribe a Code of Conduct for all public officials and employees, stipulating the acts which constitute conflict of interest or are against public policy, and the penalties for violation thereof,” which is inclusive of themselves as public officials.
Meanwhile, Article 33 of the Constitution states, “Simple majority of each House shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but a lower number may adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members.”
Therefore, Speaker Koffa’s announcement comes after the House failed for the third time in succession to constitute a quorum for the transaction of the peoples’ business thus raising serious questions about the stability and functionality of the government.
The Constitution empowers the Speaker to be the presiding officer of the House of Representatives and therefore with his/her physical presence, any attempt by any of his/her colleagues to conduct a parallel session is deemed a political rebellion and a law breaker unless, the body agrees that he/she recuses him/herself for the sole purpose of conflict of interest in a matter placed on the agenda while in session.
However, the current crisis at the House is being triggered by a group of 43 lawmakers, led by Samuel Kogar from Nimba County, on the ticket of the MDR, who are dissatisfied with Speaker Koffa’s leadership, though they are struggling for 49 signatures to remove Koffa.
This faction has accused the Speaker of mismanagement and failing to effectively lead the House coupled with his involvement into alleged corruption and conflict of interest.
The group’s discontent, which started in the absence of the Speaker has been exacerbated by the Speaker’s perceived inability to foster unity and collaboration among the members.
Speaker Koffa on the other hand has maintained that he is committed to fulfilling his duties and ensuring that the legislative process is not hindered by internal conflicts; though he has publicly admitted to some lapses and expressed openness for a dialogue with aggrieved members.
But the failure of the Koffa’s side with the gavel that is expected to achieve a quorum since the resumption of the session is troubling and his fixed number of members cannot conduct business thereby rendering the House largely inactive.
As a result, the Speaker and colleagues then adjourned the session due to a lack of quorum, with a consent of plenary that the leadership of the House would evoke Article 33 of the Constitution.
Koffa said, “Colleagues, with 30 members present and 43 absent, we again do not reach a quorum as such, members that are not available as plenary instructed us the last time, we will exercise our power to compel them.”
“And there is no excuse for any member not to be here; if you have your disagreement, you are allowed to put it on the agenda. We do not restrict agenda items here. Therefore, the leadership will act by evoking Article 33,” he maintained.
Meanwhile, the anti-Koffa bloc continues to buy time and has again issued another ultimatum for Deputy Speaker Thomas Fallah, the Chief Clerk, Mildred Siryon and other members of the Secretariat aligned with Speaker Koffa.
Legislative pundits are saying that what the 42 lawmakers who continue to gather in the Joint Chamber of the Legislature and make demands forget to understand is that that is not a legitimate plenary and therefore their demands are mere bluffs because the Speaker and leadership is not incapacitated to conduct session and their plight have not reached the full plenary’s agenda.
The crux of their political strength will be tested when all members and parties there are requested to be in attendance at the next scheduled session on Tuesday, October 28, 2024. But legislative sources said as welcoming as their resolution would mean to them and their followers, any action taken by them in terms of the Deputy Speaker Fallah’s position being announced vacant and the removal of the Chief Clerk and other Secretariat members, they should be prepared to face legal consequences.
The law breakers also threatened to withhold the salaries of lawmakers who fail to attend the majority’s session within the next two weeks but information coming from legislative employees said it is laughable because Koffa has significant number of executive committee chairpersons and members on his side who are responsible for the budget and payment of salaries.
The anti-Koffa bloc was short of one member yesterday in person of Representative Michael Thomas who is reported to have traveled out of the country but Representative James Kolleh argued that the Speaker’s actions are an overreach of power and a violation of their rights as elected representatives, thus vowing to resist any mandate from the court on grounds that the Legislature is a separate branch of government.
Article 66 of the Liberian Constitution states that “The Legislature shall make no law nor create any exceptions as would deprive the Supreme Court of any of the powers granted herein.”
“We will not sit under Speaker Koffa’s gavel because we have lost confidence in his leadership, and we will not be coerced into attending sessions that we believe are illegitimate,” they are resisting.
But according to Article 43, “The Legislature shall prescribe the procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be in conformity with the requirements of due process of law.”
Justifying their action, the anti-Koffa bloc said it is in line with the standing rules of the House but Article 38 of the Constitution reiterates that, “All rules adopted by the Legislature shall conform to the requirements of due process of law laid down in this Constitution.”
Representative Yekeh Kolubah countered the justification by announcing the possibility of seeking an intervention from the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, as the situation continues to deepen, the question remains whether Speaker Koffa’s invocation of Article 33 will succeed in compelling the dissenting lawmakers to return to the session with a potential looming legal battle.
