By Precious D. Freeman
The Supreme Court has declared the self-labeled “Majority” actions within the House of Representatives as ultra vires meaning they are beyond their legal authority as their decisions violate the Liberian Constitution.
The ruling, handed down on Friday, December 6, 2024, could have ended the weeks of political turmoil within the 55th Legislature but that seems far from expected as many electorates still find it difficult to understand the interpreter’s interpretation of Article 33 of the Constitution.
Those claiming to be the majority in order to remove Fonati Koffa, at the heart of the controversy, elected a new speaker, reshuffled legislative committees, and in defiance to the Supreme Court continued to hold sessions outside the constitutional framework.
The court’s ruling should have underscored the importance of adherence to constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 33 and 49, which govern the operations of the House of Representatives instead, all sides claimed victory upon the court’s ruling thus sending a signal that more confusion had been created.
Though the Supreme Court emphasized that any actions or sittings not in conformity with Articles 33 and 49 of the Liberian 1986 Constitution are ‘ultra vires’ and therefore, unconstitutional, many electorates believed that the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of justice could have been clearer instead of dashing lexical (vocabulary or philosophical) words that have confused the literate, what more about the illiterate.
The Court instructed that the House of Representatives must conduct its activities in strict compliance with the Constitution.
“Any sitting not in conformity with Articles 33 and 49 of the Liberian 1986 Constitution is “ultra vires” (unconstitutional). Go back and act accordingly,” the Court stated in its opinion.
The ruling also reaffirmed the court’s jurisdiction to intervene, citing Article 66 of the 1986 Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court final authority in constitutional matters.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Speaker Koffa expressed optimism for reconciliation within the House of Representatives.
In a statement, Koffa said, “We celebrate victory, not of a bloc, but of a democracy embedded in the rule of law. In the next few days, I will be reaching across the aisle to encourage my colleagues to return to work, restructure the House, and contemplate my transition. To God be the glory.”
Koffa’s remarks reflect a commitment to unity, despite the tense political climate in the Legislature. However, while the ruling supports Koffa’s leadership, it does not entirely invalidate the Majority Bloc’s actions.
Rep. James M. Kolleh, a prominent member of the Majority Bloc, responded to the ruling, stating that the Court had not declared any of the Majority Bloc’s actions unconstitutional.
He emphasized that, “not a single action of the Majority was declared unconstitutional, illegal, null, and void.”
Kolleh argued that the ruling upheld the constitutional authority of the majority to compel members to attend sessions and establish a quorum.
He concluded, “The Majority Bloc remains intact, and we will continue to act in accordance with the law, as directed by the Court.”
While the Court’s decision restores constitutional order and emphasizes adherence to legal principles, it raises important questions about the future of the House of Representatives.
The Majority Bloc’s claim to the Speaker’s position remains in contention, with Speaker Koffa challenging the legitimacy of the process that led to his removal.
Political analysts warn that the ruling may not fully resolve the deep divisions within the Legislature.
The true test will come as the House of Representatives reconvenes, and the Majority Bloc will need to determine whether it can muster the necessary votes to move forward without further legal or political challenges.
The ruling also underscores the principle of separation of powers, a cornerstone of the Liberian Constitution.
Chief Justice Yuoh, in her opinion, stated that “the Supreme Court cannot do for the Legislature what is within its purview to do, as doing so would violate the constitutional mandate on the separation of powers.”
The Court clarified that the House had failed to promulgate standing rules to compel absentee members to attend sessions, despite the provisions of Article 33 that require the Speaker to preside over joint sessions.
This gap in the legislative rules, the Court concluded, rendered the Majority Bloc’s actions outside the bounds of constitutional authority.
The Court’s ruling serves as a cautionary message to all branches of government, particularly the Legislature, about the importance of acting within the confines of the Constitution.
The justices made it clear that the House of Representatives must operate in full compliance with constitutional provisions and standing rules.
The Supreme Court’s intervention marks a significant moment in post-war Liberia, as this is the second time since the country’s civil conflict that the Court has made a ruling on a high-profile legislative dispute.
The first occurred with former Speaker Edwin Melvin Snow, signaling the Court’s increasing role in maintaining constitutional integrity.
The Majority Bloc, represented by Cllr. Varney Sherman, had maintained that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction in what they termed a “political matter.”
They argued that the actions taken to remove Speaker Koffa were within the bounds of legislative procedure and did not violate any constitutional statutes. However, the Court’s decision has rendered those claims moot.
With the political landscape in flux, the House of Representatives must now decide how to move forward. Will the Majority Bloc continue to push for Speaker Koffa’s removal, or will they respect the Court’s ruling and work toward reconciliation? What is clear, however, is that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its role as the final arbiter in constitutional matters, ensuring that all branches of government adhere to the rule of law.
The next steps for the House of Representatives will undoubtedly shape the political future of Liberia, and all eyes will be on the Legislature as it seeks to move beyond this dispute.
The dispute began in October 2024, when 47 members of the House of Representatives signed a resolution to remove Speaker Koffa, accusing him of misconduct, conflicts of interest, and administrative incompetence.
The resolution cited Article 49 of the Constitution and Rule 9.1 of the House’s Rules and Procedures, which allow for the Speaker’s removal for cause.
Speaker Koffa, however, challenged the legitimacy of the process, claiming it violated constitutional and procedural norms.
He petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, seeking a declaratory judgment to nullify the Majority Bloc’s actions, including their handling of the 2025 national budget.
The Supreme Court’s ruling effectively nullifies all actions taken by the Majority Bloc, including the election of a new Speaker and the reassignment of committees.
The Court instructed the House of Representatives to resume its activities under the leadership of Speaker Koffa and in strict compliance with constitutional provisions.
