The leadership of Liberia's House of Representatives (HoR) is contemplating a bold legal move to break the legislative deadlock that has paralyzed the lower chamber. Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, facing an escalating crisis, has hinted at seeking the intervention of the Supreme Court to compel renegade lawmakers who have refused to attend sessions, thereby crippling the legislature's ability to function. The possibility of legal action follows repeated failed attempts to achieve quorum in the House for the second consecutive session.
Over the past two days, the grounds of the Capitol Building have been the site of political theater, as tensions mount within the HoR. Roll calls on both Tuesday and Thursday this week showed only 30 lawmakers present in the chamber--far short of the 37 required for quorum--leaving the legislature unable to conduct any official business. The absence of a majority of the 73 members is preventing the passage of critical financial agreements, stalling the review of laws intended to bolster the country's economic outlook, and halting discussions on the pending 2025 National Budget. If this gridlock continues, it could lead to a shutdown of the government's operations.
The driving force behind this deadlock is a resolution signed by 47 lawmakers on October 17 calling for Speaker Koffa's removal, citing a loss of confidence in his leadership. These lawmakers allege that Koffa has manipulated the House budget and exploited his position for personal gain, thus undermining the integrity of the legislative body. However, despite their claims, no substantial evidence has been provided to support these allegations.
Koffa's supporters argue that the push to oust him is politically motivated, stemming from his decision to launch an audit of the Legislature's finances, which is expected to reveal extensive financial misconduct involving high-ranking lawmakers. The audit, they claim, could expose corruption schemes dating back to 2005, implicating many in the so-called "majority bloc" seeking Koffa's removal. These lawmakers, they say, are attempting to block Koffa from presiding over the 2025 budget hearing, positioning themselves to manipulate the national budget.
Despite mounting pressure and calls for his resignation, Speaker Koffa has vowed to resist any unconstitutional attempts to remove him from office. He has repeatedly cited Article 49 of the 1986 Constitution, which stipulates that a Speaker can only be removed by a two-thirds majority vote of the House. This threshold requires the support of 49 lawmakers, a number the dissenting lawmakers have yet to secure.
Koffa eyes Supreme Court
On Thursday, October 14, Speaker Koffa informed his colleagues that the leadership of the House is exploring the possibility of filing a writ of mandamus--a legal order that would compel absent lawmakers to return to session. A writ of mandamus is a powerful legal tool, used to force a government official or public entity to fulfill a duty required by law. In this case, Koffa and his legal advisors are likely to argue that the absent lawmakers have a constitutional obligation to attend House sessions and that their deliberate absenteeism is preventing the Legislature from functioning.
This potential move could escalate the conflict into a full-blown constitutional showdown. Article 33 of the Liberian Constitution clearly states that "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." Koffa's legal team could argue that the absence of lawmakers violates their constitutional duty, and the Supreme Court could issue an order requiring them to attend sessions.
Nimba County District #7 Representative, Hon. Musa Bility, made the initial motion citing Article 33, supporting Koffa's push for a legal remedy. This move could force the renegade lawmakers into a difficult position: either return to the House or face possible legal sanctions for failing to perform their duties.
Renegade lawmakers' next move
The lawmakers seeking Koffa's removal, however, are unlikely to back down easily. Their strategy has so far involved boycotting sessions, effectively halting the legislative process and using their absence as leverage to pressure Koffa into resigning or recusing himself from presiding over further House sessions. Their six-count resolution has not yet gained the two-thirds majority needed to formally oust Koffa, but their actions suggest they are willing to use unconventional tactics to force his hand.
Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of Koffa and issue a writ of mandamus, the renegade lawmakers could adopt a new strategy. They might argue that they are justified in their boycott because of Koffa's alleged misconduct, claiming that attending sessions under his leadership compromises the integrity of the Legislature. This could prompt a counter-legal action, where they seek judicial endorsement of their position, possibly filing their own case against Koffa to substantiate their claims of budget manipulation and abuse of power.
Furthermore, these lawmakers could escalate their political pressure outside the courtroom. By rallying public support or calling for mass protests, they could create a broader political crisis that shifts public opinion against Koffa. In such a scenario, the lawmakers might gamble that the weight of public sentiment and political pressure would eventually force Koffa to step down, even if the Supreme Court rules against them.
Who Will Blink First?
This standoff now appears to hinge on which side will blink first. Koffa, confident in the constitutional process, is betting that the Supreme Court will intervene in his favor, compelling his opponents to return to session and allowing the legislative process to resume. If this happens, Koffa may regain control of the House, and his opponents would be forced to pursue other, less direct means of ousting him.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
On the other hand, the renegade lawmakers are betting on the power of attrition. By continuing to boycott sessions and maintain public pressure, they hope to force Koffa into a position where his leadership becomes untenable. If they succeed in painting Koffa as an obstacle to legislative progress and good governance, they may eventually win enough public and political support to secure his removal.
The longer the stalemate drags on, the greater the risk that the functioning of government will come to a grinding halt. With the 2025 budget looming and crucial financial agreements pending, neither side can afford to let the crisis fester indefinitely. At some point, the pressure will become too much for one side, and when that moment comes, we will see who blinks first.
The Supreme Court's ruling, should Koffa proceed with the writ of mandamus, may serve as the tipping point in this confrontation. But even a legal victory may not be enough to bring the dispute to an end. Ultimately, the resolution of this crisis will require more than just legal maneuvering--it will depend on whether either side is willing to compromise, or whether the battle for control of the House will push Liberia's government to the brink of paralysis.
