Capitol Hill, Monrovia – Lawmakers opposed to House Speaker J. Fonati Koffa are determined to press ahead with their scheduled session on Tuesday, despite a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court, which temporarily halts their proceedings. The lawmakers, who claim to represent the majority, allege that the Court’s intervention is an overreach into legislative authority and violates the separation of powers.
By Gerald C. Koinyeneh, [email protected]
“The Court has gone beyond its bounds,” stated Rep. Samuel Kogar (People’s Unification Party, Nimba District #5), who chairs the Majority Bloc. “Liberians can be assured that the Judiciary will not stop the House from working. The court cannot dictate House leadership matters… The majority has decided to remove Fonati Koffa, and we will proceed with the Liberian people’s business on Tuesday.”
Expressing surprise at the court’s decision to issue a nine-day writ of prohibition, Kogar questioned the timing.
“If one of our kind has gone to the court, what we expected was for the Justice in Chambers to call for a conference on Monday instead of stopping us from doing our constitutional business,” he said.
The confrontation between the Supreme Court and the lawmakers escalated last week when Associate Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay issued a stay order against the Majority Bloc’s plans to unseat Speaker Koffa. This decision followed a petition from Speaker Koffa challenging his opponents’ push for a vote of no confidence. The writ mandates that all actions cease until a conference on Monday, November 4, 2024.
By directive of His Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, Sr, Associate Justice presiding in Chambers, you are hereby cited to a conference with His Honor on Monday, November 4, 2024, at the hour of 10:00 a.m., in connection with the above captioned case. Meanwhile, you are ordered to stay all further proceedings and/or actions in the matter pending the outcome of the conference.
Cllr. Sam Mamulu, Clerk, Supreme Court, R.L
Excerpt of the writ: “By directive of His Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, Sr, Associate Justice presiding in Chambers, you are hereby cited to a conference with His Honor on Monday, November 4, 2024, at the hour of 10:00 a.m., in connection with the above captioned case. Meanwhile, you are ordered to stay all further proceedings and/or actions in the matter pending the outcome of the conference.”
Legal Basis and Legislative Claims
Rep. Foday Fahnbulleh (Dist. #7, Bong County), a leader in the move to remove Koffa, defended their right to proceed, stating, “The writ of prohibition is an infringement on the Legislature’s constitutional authority.” Fahnbulleh cited Article 3 of the Liberian Constitution, which establishes the separation of powers, and Article 38, which gives each House authority over its own affairs.
The Majority Bloc insists that their actions align with constitutional provisions, highlighting Article 33, which they interpret as requiring only a simple majority for quorum. With 43 members supporting their cause, they argued that they surpass the required 37 for quorum, dismissing the Supreme Court’s reference to them as a “block” rather than plenary.
The Court has gone beyond its bounds. Liberians can be assured that the Judiciary will not stop the House from working. The court cannot tell the House what to do as it relates to its leadership… The majority has decided to embark on the removal of Fonati Koffa, and we will go ahead and do the Liberian people’s business on Tuesday.
Rep. Samuel Kogar, Nimba District #5, Chairman, Majority Bloc
Article 33: “A 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. Whenever the House of Representatives and the Senate shall meet in joint session, the presiding officer of the House of Representatives shall preside.”
The Pro-Koffa group also stated that although they have a majority, they are the legitimate side since they have the Speaker and Deputy Speaker with them. They claimed the House rule called on the minority to compel the majority to session. And this was the basis of their petition to the Supreme Court.
Rule 12.1 states “A quorum shall consist of a simple majority of the members of the Honorable House of Representatives. Quorum shall be necessary for the transaction of business. However, a minority may meet from day to day. Meetings at which a quorum is not present, only a motion to compel the attendance of absent members or to adjourn may be made.”
Pressure on Koffa’s Allies and Legislative Tensions
Speaker Koffa, unable to reach a quorum in recent sessions, maintains he has the support of 30 lawmakers. However, his opponents insist they are moving closer to the two-thirds majority required to unseat him. Koffa has called on dissenting members to attend official sessions and discuss their grievances but has been met with repeated refusals, further complicating attempts to resolve the situation internally.
In addition to attempting to unseat Speaker Koffa, the Majority Bloc has pressured Deputy Speaker Thomas P. Fallah, Chief Clerk Mildred Sayon, and other House officials to support their efforts, warning that their positions may be at risk if they do not comply. They have also threatened to withhold salaries of lawmakers who refuse to align with them.
Constitutional Grounds and Legislative Autonomy
The Majority Bloc argues that the Supreme Court’s intervention undermines their legislative autonomy. According to Fahnbulleh, the writ effectively forces an adjournment longer than five days, which they claim violates Article 40. This article states that “Neither House shall adjourn for more than five days without the consent of the other and both Houses shall always sit in the same city.”
Citing Article 44, several lawmakers suggest the writ represents “legislative contempt” by obstructing the House from conducting its business.
The bloc has signaled that they may consider impeachment charges against Justice Gbeisay, citing Article 43, should his rulings continue to interfere with House proceedings. They also raised concerns that the writ was addressed to Rep. Kogar rather than the presiding officer, Rep. Clarence Gahr (District #5, Margibi County), who has been overseeing their sessions since they resolved not to recognize Koffa as Speaker.
Looming Constitutional Crisis?
Legal experts warn that the ongoing clash could push Liberia toward a constitutional crisis, with potential repercussions for the balance of power. “If lawmakers proceed in defiance of the Supreme Court, it could set a precedent for future confrontations between the branches of government,” noted a constitutional law expert. “This could weaken democratic institutions and erode public trust.”
The lawyer claimed that if the anti-Koffa group defies the court order, the House may not conduct a session for more than five days, and if this happens, the Senate will stop holding sessions as stipulated in Article 40 of the constitution.
Amid public concern, civil society groups have urged both sides to prioritize stability and seek amicable solutions. Sources close to Speaker Koffa indicate that he remains confident the Supreme Court’s order will stand.
As the Majority Bloc moves to convene its session on Tuesday in defiance of the Supreme Court’s writ, the standoff between the branches of government risks plunging Liberia into a protracted constitutional conflict that could reshape the nation’s political landscape.
