The absence of the Supreme Court from President Joseph Boakai’s second State of the Nation Address sparked widespread discussions, with many questioning the rationale behind such a move. But according to Associate Justice Yarmie Quiqui Gbeisay, the court’s decision was rooted in legal principles rather than political maneuvering.
During a recent explanation with Journalist Jerry T. Myers, Justice Gbeisay laid out the Supreme Court’s reasoning, emphasizing that the legislative impasse in the House of Representatives made it difficult for the judiciary to take a definitive stance.
“We made a decision, and the effect of that decision was that our law requires the House to have a quorum, and that quorum must be presided over by a Speaker. Now that the so-called majority bloc has a quorum but no Speaker, whatever they do is ultra vires—in other words, illegal.“
He went further to outline the court’s position on the minority bloc:
“We turned to the minority bloc and said, ‘The law says until you get a majority to form a quorum, you must continue to adjourn from day to day and compel the others to join. But there is no statute that tells us how you will compel them. You don’t have a rule that guides you on this process. So you, too, will remain there. Until you can get a majority, whatever you do is ultra vires.’”
With this, the Supreme Court distanced itself from the ongoing political crisis, making it clear that its role was to interpret the law—not engage in political resolutions.
“On both sides, the Supreme Court was clearly saying: go and solve your problems; we don’t have a law to that effect.”
This, according to Justice Gbeisay, is why the judiciary opted not to attend the address. Accepting an invitation from one faction could have been interpreted as legitimizing one side over the other, something the court was unwilling to do.
“We have done our own; we are not in control of politics. If, for some reason, the Senate decides to recognize the majority bloc, the President recognizes the majority bloc, and government functions continue, then we receive an invitation from the Speaker, our presence there means we have recognized one side of the bloc. So the best thing to do is to remain who we are.”
While some may see this as a wise move to maintain judicial neutrality, others might argue that the court should have taken a firmer stance to clearly state their position in the earlier stages of this political rigmarole.
