It seems the noise surrounding the ruling of the Supreme Court in the amended Bill of Information filed before it by embattled House Speaker Counselor Jonathan Fonati Koffa is not going to die down any time soon. Since the nation’s highest court’s ruling in which it termed every action of the House’s “Majority Bloc” as “ultra vires”, individuals have publicly disagreed with the Court’s opinion. The Court, in its ruling on Wednesday, April 23rd, went further to clarify that Cllr. Koffa is still the Speaker of the House of Representatives and not the controversial Speaker, Rep. Richard Nagbe Koon.
To the shock and dismay of some, one group that has come out to publicly disagree with the Court’s ruling is the Liberia National Bar Association (LNBA), which is the umbrella organization for all practicing lawyers in the country. There is a mantra that all lawyers are to protect the Supreme Court whether it makes error or not in its opinions.
Cllr. Bornor M. Varmah, the LNBA National President, who presented the Bar’s position, began by acknowledging the Court’s supremacy. In the same vein expressed the Bar’s disagreement with the Court’s ruling.
“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.
“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 Bar’s president, who read the LNBA’s position indicated that 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.”
One area that the Court’s critics have voiced their dissenting opinions is that it declared in its April 23rd Opinion 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.” One major action that the “Majority Bloc” accomplished was the passing of the 2025 Budget into law. During the hearings of the budget before its passage, spending agencies, including the Judiciary—inclusive of the Supreme Court—sent their representatives to defend their individual budgets, out of which they are today taking salaries and or other benefits.
“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.”
