In a landmark ruling, Liberia’s Supreme Court has reaffirmed Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa as the legitimate Speaker of the 55th House of Representatives, settling a contentious dispute over legislative authority and procedural legitimacy.
The decision came during a Bill of Information hearing, where the Court clarified that Speaker Koffa retains full constitutional power to conduct House proceedings, even in the absence of a quorum. The ruling emphasized that the Speaker alone holds the authority to:
- Compel lawmakers’ attendance to establish a quorum.
- Adjourn sessions if insufficient members are present.
- Call and preside over all House sessions, with no provision for independent meetings by a “majority group.”
Crucially, the Court stated that no session is legally valid without the Speaker or a constitutionally authorized presiding officer.
The ruling also addressed the Deputy Speaker’s authority, making it clear that he cannot preside over sessions unless:
- The Speaker formally acknowledges absence.
- The Speaker is incapacitated by illness, death, or another constitutional barrier.
Since Cllr. Koffa never ceded his authority, and was neither absent nor incapacitated, any attempts to convene sessions without his approval were deemed unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Majority Bloc for failing to follow proper legislative procedures in their ongoing efforts to unseat Speaker J. Fonati Koffa. The court emphasized that any attempt to remove the Speaker must adhere to constitutional rules, specifically requiring a legitimate sitting of the House and the support of at least 49 votes.
During a hearing on the Bill of Information filed by Speaker Koffa’s legal team, Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene Gyapay Yuoh and other Justices underscored the chaos caused by the Majority Bloc’s actions, which have been conducted outside of constitutional and procedural bounds.
“Where he, Speaker Koffa, is still sitting, and you open a parallel session, it can create chaos,” Chief Justice Yuoh warned, highlighting the dangers of bypassing established legislative processes.
The Court had previously ruled that legislative proceedings, including the removal of a speaker, must meet quorum requirements and adhere to constitutional leadership procedures.
Despite this, the Majority Bloc has continued to hold separate sessions, without the Speaker presiding, and sought to push forward with its agenda.
In response, Speaker Koffa and other members of the House filed a Bill of Information with the Court, asking for enforcement of the previous ruling.
They argued that the Majority Bloc’s actions undermine the Constitution, calling for their actions to be declared null and void.
The petitioners emphasized that the Majority Bloc was intentionally disregarding the Court’s order and continuing to conduct illegitimate proceedings.
Throughout the hearing, the Court made it clear that the Majority Bloc’s disregard for procedure was a serious concern.
Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay emphasized that while the Court cannot compel the Legislature to act in a specific way, it must ensure that any actions taken are in line with constitutional principles.
Justice Yussif D. Kaba also expressed doubts about the Majority Bloc’s legal justification for their actions, questioning the validity of their claims in light of the Court’s previous ruling.
Cllr. Varney Sherman, representing the Majority Bloc, attempted to defend the actions of his clients, arguing that a majority of the House could convene a session and that the Speaker need not be present.
However, the Court quickly rejected this line of reasoning, reaffirming that legislative procedures require the presence of a constitutionally elected speaker to preside over proceedings.
Chief Justice Yuoh stressed that both sides were relying on Article 33 of the Constitution, which mandates that legislative proceedings be presided over by a legitimate Speaker.
She questioned why the Majority Bloc would seek to conduct a parallel session when Speaker Koffa, as the constitutionally elected Speaker, was still in office and actively presiding over the House.
Justice Wolokollie further noted that if the Majority Bloc continues to flout the Constitution, it could set a dangerous precedent for future legislative actions.
“There are rules to follow, and if those rules are not followed, it will open the door for further violations,” she warned, reinforcing the importance of maintaining procedural integrity.
In a final remark, the Supreme Court concluded that it would not take sides but had provided an interpretation of the law that the House of Representatives must follow in order to resolve the current crisis.
Legal pundits say the sharp rebuke of the Majority Bloc’s lawyers Cllr. Varney Sherman by the full bench of the Supreme Court implied that the Majority Bloc led by Rep. Koon had defied the ruling issued by the Supreme Court in December 2024, which declared their attempt to remove Speaker Koffa unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has reserved ruling into the matter for a later date.
Additionally, Chief Justice Youh is requesting the Ministry of Justice to provide security for each of the Associate Justices prior to the final decision.
This verdict today reinforces Koffa’s leadership amid recent tensions in the House, where factions had challenged his control. Supporters hail the decision as a victory for constitutional order, while critics fear it may deepen political rifts.
With the Supreme Court’s unambiguous stance, Cllr. Koffa’s position is legally unassailable, for now. However, Liberia’s political landscape remains volatile, and the House’s ability to function cohesively will depend on whether opposing factions accept the ruling or escalate their resistance.
Source: FPA
