In Embattled Speaker Fonati Koffa’s Bill Of Information Case
By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia -One of the Supreme Court Justices, Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay has dissented on the ruling into the Bill of Information filed by Embattled Speaker J. Fonati Kofa in which the majority ruled in his favor, describing it as “miscarriage of the law”.
The majority ruling read by Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh stated That a bill of information will lie to clarify uncertainties in Opinions and Judgments of the Supreme Court. In the instant case, the parties being at variance with respect to what constitute the December 6, 2024 Opinion and Judgment of this Court, the amended bill of information is proper for such clarification; and,
That the conclusion of the Supreme Court Opinion and Judgment of December 6, 2024, is that any sitting or action by the “Majority Bloc” (respondents) to the exclusion of Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, the duly elected presiding Officer of the House of Representatives, while he is present and available to preside is unconstitutional and without the pale of the law;
WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the amended bill of information is granted for the reasons stated in the Opinion of this Judgment, and the “Majority Bloc” (respondents) is hereby mandated to operate in accordance with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution as contained in the Court’s Opinion and Judgment of December 6, 2024, and further clarified in the Opinion of this judgment.
Justice Gbeisay in his dissenting view said, the judgement of his colleagues is unfortunate as it is a miscarriage of the law.
The Supreme Court Justice raised issues which supported his dissenting view and they are (1) the office of the Bill of Information in our Jurisdiction, the Action of the majority bloc in passing the fiscal budget of 2025, which was subsequently confirmed by the Liberian Senate and (3) the Functioning and operation of the Liberian Government under approved budget of 2025.
Addressing the first issue, Justice Gbeisay added the controversy in the house of Representative is more of a Political matter especially as it relates to the means of compelling one bloc of the House to attend a sitting where the speaker is a presiding officer. As we stated in our earlier judgement, neither the constitution of 1986 nor the rules of the House of Representatives set the procedure for compelling members who fail to attend a session. The court as it had stated, cannot intervene by setting the procedures for the House of Representatives which would amount to a violation of the Constitution on separation of powers of the three branches under Article 3.
He further said that there being no mandate from the Supreme Court in its December 6,2024 ruling and the Bill of Information does not meet the requirements of Rule IV, Part 12 of the Revised Rule of the Supreme Court and the law. Hence, the Opinion and judgment of my majority colleagues is a slap in the face of justice.
”In my opinion, the judgment of my esteemed colleagues is unfortunate as it is a miscarriage of the law. “
Now coming to the second issue, Whether the passage into law of the budget for the fiscal year 2025 by the “Majority Bloc” of the House of Representatives, and subsequently confirmed by the Liberian Senate is illegal as alleged by the informant?
In addressing this issue,“ I must consider the political and legal acts and expediency under the circumstance of this case”. Though an impasse exists in the House of Representatives that had divided them into “majority bloc” and “minority bloc”, they still have the right to sit in spite of the Supreme Court’s decision of December 6, 2024.
The Supreme Court Justice added that As earlier indicated in their yesterday April 23,2025, Opinion delivered, the Supreme Court has no authority whatsoever to stop another branch of government from performing its constitutional duty.
The “majority bloc” while sitting, received the draft budget for fiscal year 2025 from the clerk of the House of Representatives, which was submitted by the President of Liberia.
The “majority block” deliberated on the draft budget and passed on it, then submitted it to the Liberian Senate which concurred by affirming the act of the “majority bloc” with respect to the passage of the budget.
He stated that a political decision was made by the “majority bloc” and the House of Senate by taking action to pass on the draft budget notwithstanding the impasse at the House of Representatives. Following this political decision of the “majority block” and confirmed by the Liberian Senate, the budget was submitted to the President of Liberia to sign, which he did in line with his official duty as President of Liberia, Head of Government, and Chief Executive of the Liberian Government.
“The expediency of these actions cannot go unnoticed by any reasonable mind and this court is not unaware to what would have enlarged into an eminent chaos in the Government of Liberia.” I am restating the circumstances that could have led to a chaos and total collapse of the Government of Liberia.
The President of Liberia in keeping with his constitutional duty as Head of Government and Chief Executive is required to submit a draft budget for each fiscal year to enable the operation of the Liberian Government: pay salaries, pay obligations of the government and provide operational expenses for the three branches of the government. And by law, the fiscal budget for 2025 should have been submitted to the House of Representatives before
October 31, 2024. What then could the President have done in the midst of a divided members of the House of Representatives? Wait until his government collapse because the fiscal budget has not been passed? Indeed, that would have been an unmindful act or a non-functional government to head.
In his wisdom as the President, Head of Government, and Chief Executive, he proceeded to submit his draft budget to the clerk of the House of Representatives, which the “majority” block took seize of. As I recall, at the time the Supreme Court rendered its decision on December 6, 2024, the President was nearly late by two months to comply with the budget law.
Given all of the above circumstances, the Executive Branch of the Liberian Government, acted promptly and politically by signing into law the budget that has been passed by the “Majority Bloc” of the House of Representatives and the Liberian Senate for the survival of the state itself. Thus, this is now the 2025 fiscal budget which this government is utilizing to operate and which every branch of the government is drawing on.
Moreover, the act of the executive in processing the 2025 fiscal budget irrespective of the legislative impasse is lined with the concept of self-preservation of the state. This doctrine of international law prefers to a state fundamental needs to protect itself, its citizens and its interests from harm or destruction, often in the face of external threats or internal instability.
Lamenting further, the executive action also finds support in public policy.
As head of government, head of state, head of government and commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Liberia. (Art.50), the President exercises expediency and approval powers under Article 35.
And as a consequence of this, he signed the budget into law after the de jure concurrence granted the budget by the Honorable Liberian Senate. Moreover, in the absence of a solution to the legislative problem the President could not wait for the state machinery to grind to a halt because of the deadlock.
This would have certainly had security implications and other implications wherein, the entire functionaries of the government would have collapsed due to lack of operating budget to keep health facilities, school facilities and other functionaries of government, including the judiciary from performing its duties and functions.
I now come to the third and final issue, the functioning and operation of the government under the budget of 2025. May the “Minority Bloc” of the House of Representatives or any branch of the Liberian Government receive benefits under the same budget and then challenge its legality?
I also answer in the negative. In the case: LAMCO JV Operating Company Co. v. Azzam et al., 31 LLR, 649 (1983), “one who knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance is estopped from denying the validity or binding effect on him of such a contract or conveyance.” It would be an inconsistent position to benefit from the budget of 2025 by receiving salaries and then seek to challenge its legality.
This brings to mind the “minority block” position that the budget as passed is illegal, then they cried out that they have been denied salaries for which they resulted to a mandamus proceeding before this Court.
The question then is, under which budget they seek to recover their salaries? Are they seeking salaries under the same budget of 2025 they declared illegal? In my mind, this amounts to a contradictory position, which I cannot sustain.
Expanding this question further, may any branch of the government seek to benefit from the budget of 2025 and then declare same illegal?
And this question is more to be considered by this Court. Currently, the Liberian Judiciary like the other two branches of government is receiving salaries, benefits and operational expenses under the 2025 budget. In the wisdom of this Court, could it declare the budget illegal?
He thought that doing so is preposterous, because the consequence would be producing chaos and collapse of the government for lack of money to operate, and the judiciary would be paralyzed.
The Court is guided by and should be reasoning in applying the law in the light of the circumstances of a particular case as in the instant one.
The preservation of our government, maintenance of civility, peace and orderliness in our society are embodied in judicial pronouncement of what the law is. Hence the action of the president as head of state, head of government and commander in chief of the Armed Forces of Liberia to prevent chaos which has made us to sit here today as Justices finds support in law, expediency and public policy; as the prime duty of the constitutional court is to interpret the law for the safety and survivability of the body politic.
“For the reasons stated above, I respectfully withhold my signature from the majority opinion of this Court as a bill of information will not legally lie.” I further hope and pray that the opinion will be recalled in the immediate future by this bench or the succeeding bench.
The Clerk of this Court is ordered to file this dissenting opinion within the archives of the Supreme Court.