Legal Arguments From Both Sides Ahead Of The High Court’s December 6 Ruling
By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia- At the weekend, the Supreme Court of Liberia ruled that pursuant to Article 66 of the Constitution, “Shall be the final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from the courts of records, court of not record, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or any authority both as to the law and fact …. Hence, the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues arising out of internal dissension among the members of the Legislature as in the present case.”
The ruling on Friday, December 6, 2024 came after the highest court in the land heard arguments from lawyers representing both the embattled House of Representatives Speaker, Cllr. Fonati Koffa and the “majority bloc” that have since announced that they have removed Koffa of the main opposition CDC party and replaced him with Rep. Richard Koon of the ruling Unity Party.
The high court further ruled that it is the law vogue that the constitution must be interpreted in light of the entire document rather than a sequestered pronouncement because every provision is of equal importance and even where there is apparent discrepancy between different provisions, the court should harmonize them if possible.
“That this court’s interpretation of Article 33 of the Constitution (1986) is that whether a simple majority is sitting or a lower number, in both cases a presiding officer, defined in Article 49 of the constitution is the speaker and in his/her absence, the Deputy Speaker;
That in the event where the speaker is presiding over a majority, the constitution is devoid of the mechanism for the minority is to compel attendance of absent members and the legislature has promulgated No enabling status or standing rules setting forth the process for compelling absentee members to attend sessions as envisioned under Article 33 of the constitution and;
That under these circumstances, the Supreme Court cannot do for the Legislature what is within it purview to do, as to do so will be a violation of the constitutional mandate on the separation of powers.
Content of Arguments
The full Bench of the Supreme heard arguments into the matter involving the unconstitutional from their line of questions asked to the majority lawyers headed by Cllr. H. Varney Sherman.
The high court the legal arguments on both side on November 27,2024.
One of the Justices in person of Justice Yusif D. Kaba questioned the majority bloc lawyer whether it was good for the majority to convene session of their own when the speaker was present?
Justice Wolokolie asked, how was the old speaker removed and what procedure was used?
Asking further, Justice Kaba questioned Cllr. Sherman whether at the time of the commencement of the conflict when the speaker was out of Liberia, all the meetings that were held, were they done in the confine of the law?
Can there be a quorum without a speaker? Justice Kaba further expanded his question.
During the argument before the full Bench of the Supreme Court, Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson representing embattled speaker Cllr. Fonati Kofa raised few issues and the first issue was jurisdiction. Since indeed is a subject matter, whether or not the doctrine of separation of powers is interfering into the legislative matter and the unconstitutional suspension of some members of the House of Representatives.
Cllr. Johnson answered and said, the high court has jurisdiction over the matter citing Article 2 and Article 66 of the Liberian Constitution.
Kofa lawyer further asked, can a branch of government function on its own and do what leases them? The action of the majority bloc is it a condition for due process?
He added that the unconstitutional suspension of some lawmakers of the Honorable of House of Representatives should be declared unconstitutional in order to set a precedent for the future.
Cllr. Johnson also said, the majority lawmakers are in violation of Article 33 and 49 of the Constitution of Liberia including Rule 7&9 of the House standing rules.
He however, indicated that due process should be accorded his client where there will be a hearing, minutes of records, evidence presented and witnesses, but in this case, it was done for his client.
Kofa’s lawyer cited Article 20(a) of the constitution being violated against his client and also reference the Edwin Snowe removal case.
“We can’t two speakers” Cllr. Johnson tells Supreme Court Justices . Cllr. Johnson therefore prayed the court to declare the action of the majority bloc unconstitutional and illegal and give due process to his client.
As for his part, arguing before the court on behalf of the majority bloc, Cllr. H. Varney Sherman asked the court to take Judicial notice when members of the House of Representatives attempted to enter for the purpose of presenting vote of no confidence to the office of the speaker, they were prevented by Representative Marvin Cole of Bong County District #3 and others.
Further, Rep. Cole closed all the doors to joint chambers leaving the majority bloc forced to read their resolution outside the chamber.
“Having sessions in the joint chambers is not illegal or unconstitutional” as being perceived by the embattled speaker lawyers Cllr Sherman told the justices.
More besides, the majority bloc filed a complaint against speaker Kofa in which committee was set up to investigate him and report of the committee was sent to plenary, and it was voted upon Cllr. Sherman further argued.
Cllr. Sherman prayed the High court to leave the legislative matter with the lawmakers themselves to handle their own affairs.
reserved ruling into the unconstitutionality of the actions of certain lawmakers thereby leaving embattled speaker Fonati Kofa fate uncertain.
As for the Justice Ministry, represented by it Solicitor General Cllr. Augustine Fayiah and Assistant Minister for Litigation Cllr. Jerry Garlawolu another prosecution said, the matter before the court is not questioning the constitution but certain actions of some members of the House of Representatives.
The prosecution further said, the Ministry of Justice is not allowed to be on the side of any party and it can’t advise the Judiciary neither the legislature and prayed court to drop they (MOJ) from the proceedings in order to not entangle into Legislative matter.