PHOTO: LNBA President, Cllr. Bornor M. Varmah
The Liberian National Bar Association (LNBA) has strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court’s final ruling on the leadership feud at the House of Representatives handed down of April 23, 2025 affirming the Bill of Information filed by embattled House Speaker, Cllr. Fonati Koffa.
LNBA President Cllr. Bornor M. Varmah made the Bar’s position known today, Tuesday at a news conference in Monrovia.
The Bar believes therefore, that the Supreme Court erred by allowing informants in the proceeding to use the office of the Bill of Information to have the Supreme Court issued a second Opinion and Judgement in the same constitutionality Case, which is very different from the first Opinion in the same case.
BELOW IS FULL TEXT OF THE LNBA’S PRESS STATEMENT;
Press Statement
For Immediate Release
April 28, 2025
Liberian National Bar Association Responds to Supreme Court Ruling on Speaker Koffa’s Bill of Information
The Liberian National Bar Association (LNBA) acknowledges the Supreme Court of Liberia’s recent ruling on the Amended Bill of Information filed by Speaker J. Fonati Koffa. While the LNBA notes the April 23, 2025 Court’s opinion as a testament to the Court’s role in interpreting constitutional matters, the Bar respectfully disagrees with several key elements of the ruling.
The Office of the Bill of Information
While the LNBA upholds the authority of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of constitutional and legal questions, we are constrained to express our disagreement with the Court’s interpretation and its practical implications on the doctrine of separation of powers.
The LNBA affirms that a Bill of Information, as a procedural tool, is designed to clarify the implementation of a judgment or bring to the Court’s attention issues affecting its mandate. It is not, and should not become, a substitute mechanism for settling inherently political questions—particularly those relating to the internal organization, leadership, or operational independence of the Legislature.
The ongoing conflict within the House of Representatives is a matter that, though it may involve constitutional questions, is primarily political in nature. It requires a political resolution through institutional dialogue, consensus-building, and adherence to democratic norms. While the Court may offer interpretative guidance on legal issues, the enforcement and implementation of its opinions in such matters depend heavily on political goodwill and respect for constitutional boundaries.
The LNBA is concerned that repeated reliance on the judiciary to resolve legislative disputes may erode public confidence in the independence of both branches of government and may set a troubling precedent where political actors abdicate their responsibility to resolve internal conflicts.
Under Liberian jurisprudence and practice, a Bill of Information is intended to clarify or enforce a judgment where there is confusion or obstruction. While the Court’s decision to allow the Bill of Information was justified and procedurally correct given the confusion surrounding the meaning and application of its prior ruling of December 6, 2024, the LNBA observes that the Supreme Court expanded the function of the Bill of Information by re-asserting and elaborating its prior ruling, effectively issuing a new substantive decision rather than simply clarifying it.
This expansion risks inflating the Bill of Information into a de facto remedial tool, inviting future parties to misuse it for re-litigation rather than clarification
The LNBA asserts that on December 6, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled by indicating the following: “WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, any sitting or action by members of the legislature not in conformity with the intent of Article 33 and 49 of the Constitution are ultra vires. Hence, members of the House of Representatives are to conduct themselves accordingly. The clerk of this court is hereby ordered to inform the parties, and it is hereby so ordered.”
Rule IV, Part 12 of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of Liberia prescribes the office of bill of information as follows:
(a) A bill of information will lie to prevent a judge or any judicial officer who attempts to execute the mandate of the Supreme Court in an improper manner from doing so with the judgment and/or Mandate of the Supreme Court.
(b) A bill of information will also lie to prevent anyone whomsoever from interfering with the judgment and/or Mandate of the Supreme Court.
From the above rule, it is overly clear that a Bill of Information in this jurisdiction, in its legal context and application, is a proceeding that complains of a judge or judicial officer who attempts to execute the mandate of the Supreme Court in an improper manner, or any person who interferes with the mandate of the Supreme Court. In other words, a Bill of Information may be brought against a judge, judicial officer or any person whomsoever, who acts contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court by disobeying, interfering, or obstructing the mandate of the Supreme Court.
The Bar states that the December 6, 2024 ruling of the Supreme Court did not have any clear mandate to which the Bill of Information could lie. However, the Bar agrees with the Supreme Court on the clear purpose of clarification of the December 6, 2024 ruling.
The Bar believes therefore, that the Supreme Court erred by allowing informants in the proceeding to use the office of the Bill of Information to have the Supreme Court issued a second Opinion and Judgement in the same constitutionality Case, which is very different from the first Opinion in the same case.
The Decision of the Court to Declare “any sittings or actions of the ‘Majority Bloc’ (respondents) to the exclusion of Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, the duly qualified Presiding Officer of the House of Representatives, while he is present and available to preside, is unconstitutional and without the pale of the law”.
In its April 23, 2025 Opinion and Judgment, the Supreme Court said that “… any sittings or actions of the ‘Majority Bloc’ (respondents) to the exclusion of Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, the duly qualified Presiding Officer of the House of Representatives, while he is present and available to preside, is unconstitutional and without the pale of the law. The LNBA emphatically states that if the sittings of the Majority Bloc are illegal, obviously then the 2025 National Budget is illegal and all persons who participated in the process and/or have benefitted from the process are guilty of having participated in an illegal process and facilitated the consummation of its illegality. The LNBA believes that the Supreme Court has indicted itself of committing a very serious offense under the circumstance. That is why it is important that the Supreme Court quickly reconsiders its Opinion and Judgment and expunge itself from this embarrassment. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s Opinion and Judgment constitute judicial overreach into matters exclusively reserved by the Constitution to the House of Representatives; and this violates the Separation of Powers doctrine – the cornerstone of a Republican form of government.
The LNBA shall not condone legislative overreach in matters reserved by the 1986 Constitution to the Judiciary. Similarly, the LNBA shall not idly observe judicial overreach in matters reserved by the Constitution exclusively for the Legislature – matters such as determining who shall be the House of Representatives’ Speaker and how the Speaker may be removed from office for cause. This is simply a violation of the Political Question Doctrine.
Under Liberian law, the Political Question Doctrine is a principle rooted in constitutional interpretation that holds certain issues that are more appropriately addressed by the political branches of government (i.e., the Executive and Legislature) rather than the Judiciary. This doctrine is derived from the doctrine of separation of powers, which is enshrined in Articles 2 and 3 of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia.
Key Features of the Political Question Doctrine under Liberian Law:
Judicial Restraint: Liberian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have held that where a matter is inherently political — involving policy decisions or the discretion of the Executive or Legislature — the Judiciary will refrain from intervening.
Supreme Court Jurisprudence: While Liberian jurisprudence does not have an exhaustive list of political questions, the Supreme Court has applied the doctrine in cases involving:
Impeachment proceedings (e.g., Justice Kabineh Ja’neh’s case)
Legislative internal affairs
Matters relating to foreign relations or national defense
The conduct of elections (though courts have jurisdiction in cases of alleged violations of the Elections Law or Constitution)
Constitutional Backing:
Article 2 gives the Supreme Court the power of judicial review but limits it where constitutional interpretation gives discretion solely to the political branches.
Article 3 provides for a system of checks and balances, under which the courts must respect the domains of other branches.
Limitations: The doctrine does not shield political actors from judicial review when there is a clear violation of constitutional rights, due process, or ultra vires actions. The Court can review whether a political decision followed the procedure required by law, even if the substance of the decision is political.
That is why the LNBA notes the opinion of the Supreme Court that Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa remains the Legitimate Speaker of the House of Representatives on ground that his removal was unconstitutional consistent with Article 49 of the 1986 Constitution, which states: “The House of Representatives shall elect once every six years a Speaker who shall be the presiding officer of that body, a Deputy Speaker, and such other officers as shall ensure the proper functioning of the House. The speaker, the Deputy Speaker and other officers so elected may be removed from office for cause by resolution of a two-thirds majority of the members of the House”.
The LNBA therefore, calls on the Supreme Court not to allow this dangerous precedent, which will erode confidence in the governance of Liberia, to remain standing. Finally, the LNBA notes that should the Supreme Court fail to recall and reverse itself, thereby making the 2025 budget illegal, disbursements of salaries and payments made by the Executive for goods and services will be illegal and this will disrupt government operations and undermine the credibility of the State. Some might liken this to criminal subversion of the Government. The LNBA, as a critical institution responsible for the guidance of the State, calls on the Supreme Court to quickly move to avoid any calamity in Liberia, the impact of which will affect the stability of the country. This call is against the background of preserving public policy interest.
LNBA’s Position on QUORUM consistent with Article 33.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Articles 33 and 49 of the 1986 Constitution raises significant concerns. The designation of the Speaker as the sole presiding officer, even in the absence of a quorum, appears to overlook the procedural flexibility necessary for legislative operations. The silence of the Constitution, House Rules, and statutes on compelling attendance to sessions further complicates the practical application of this ruling.
The Bar comes in strict defense of Article 33 of the 1986 Constitution, which states: ‘The House of Representative shall elect once every six years a Speaker who shall be the presiding officer of that body, a Deputy Speaker, and such other officers as shall ensure the proper functioning of the House. The speaker, the Deputy Speaker and other officers so elected may be removed from office for cause by resolution of a two-thirds majority of the members of the House’.
This defense therefore advances the idea that for any sitting of the Legislature that has quorum to be considered unconstitutional, the Speaker, Deputy Speaker or any other ranking officer must be ‘absent’ or in other words ‘not present and available’. Presence and availability in this instance does not merely denote being within the physical confines of the designated area but also properly seated amongst similar colleagues and ready to exercise one’s constitutional functions. The LNBA under such circumstances is constrained to disagree with the Supreme Court that Speaker J. Fonati Koffa was present and available for legislative business.
LNBA emphasizes that the interpretation of Articles 33 and 49 must align with the principles of democratic governance and the separation of powers. While the Court’s ruling seeks to uphold constitutional order, it inadvertently creates challenges for legislative functionality and accountability.
For example, holding that there is a Speaker; any session had without him as presiding is illegal would present a case of absurdity. What if a quorum exists, he’s present (on the premises of the Capitol), but chooses to ignore? The LNBA thinks that ignoring quorum would undermine legislative business.
Recommendations:
We urge all stakeholders, including the Legislature and the Executive, to engage in constructive dialogue to address these concerns. The LNBA remains committed to fostering a culture of respect for the rule of law while advocating for interpretations that promote institutional harmony and democratic progress.
As the legal community, we stand ready to provide guidance and support in navigating these complex constitutional issues. The LNBA reaffirms its dedication to upholding justice, protecting constitutional rights, and ensuring the stability of Liberia’s democratic institutions.
Meanwhile the LNBA proffers the following Recommendation:
The LNBA calls for the establishment of an Independent Mediation Committee to resolve the impasse in the House of Representatives. The committee should comprise of eminent Liberians; example, former chief justices, the LNBA leadership, Interreligious council, and civil society actors in line with the Supreme Court’s opinion where it states that the opinion
The mandate of the committee will be to facilitate dialogue among rival factions and recommend a unified leadership framework for peaceful resolutions.