By Precious D. Freeman
In a detailed and uncompromising dissent, Supreme Court Justice Yamie Gbeisay has taken firm exception to the Court’s majority opinion concerning the constitutionality of the 2025 national budget and the application of a Bill of Information.
His rebuke warns against judicial overreach and reiterates the importance of respecting constitutional boundaries between the branches of government.
At the center of the legal storm is the Court’s December 6, 2024, opinion, which interpreted Articles 33 and 44 of the Constitution in a dispute among factions within the House of Representatives.
Justice Gbeisay contends that his colleagues have mischaracterized that judgment, misconstruing it as a mandate and using a Bill of Information to inappropriately revisit a settled matter.
Gbeisay opened his dissent by explaining that a mandate is a formal directive issued by an appellate court to a lower court, compelling action.
Referring to Black’s Law Dictionary, he noted that the December 6 ruling included no such directive—only an instruction to the Clerk of Court to notify the parties.
“The only order here is given to the Clerk, and the only thing the Clerk is required to do is to inform the parties,” he emphasized. “The Supreme Court ordered no action by the House of Representatives. Therefore, no mandate exists.”
He further warned that had the Court issued a mandate to lawmakers and it was ignored, it would have undermined the Court’s own authority and precipitated a constitutional crisis.
Gbeisay strongly objected to the majority’s decision to grant relief through a Bill of Information, which he insists is not a tool to reinterpret or re-declare a previous ruling.
“The informant’s request was essentially for a declaration of unconstitutionality—this is not the purpose of a Bill of Information,” he stated. “That’s a backdoor tactic, and this Court cannot allow a party to pursue their right through a wrong path.”
He cited Rule IV, Part 12 of the Supreme Court’s Revised Rules, arguing that the Bill did not meet the criteria for legal consideration, and described the majority’s actions as a “slap in the face of justice.”
Turning to the legality of the 2025 national budget passed by the “majority bloc” of the House and signed by the President, Gbeisay again invoked constitutional principles.
“In the midst of division in the House, the President acted out of political necessity,” he said.
“He moved to prevent a collapse of the government. The passage and signing of the budget fall under the doctrine of self-preservation of the state.”
He emphasized that the budget, now operational, is being used by all branches—including those questioning its legality.
“To benefit from a budget while challenging its validity is hypocrisy,” Gbeisay asserted, invoking the legal doctrine of estoppel. “You cannot accept benefits and then claim the act that delivered those benefits is illegal.”
Justice Gbeisay concluded his dissent by refusing to endorse the majority opinion and called on the Court to recall the ruling—now or in the future.
“Our role is not to invite instability,” he said. “We must interpret the law not just rigidly, but with wisdom, awareness, and care for the survival of the state.”
With the Clerk ordered to file his dissent into the Supreme Court’s archives, Gbeisay’s lone but resolute voice stands as a cautionary reminder: in Liberia’s fragile constitutional framework, where power must be exercised with humility, precision, and restraint.
“No Mandate, Just Law And Logic” -Justice Gbeisay’s Dissent SC Ruling
