The drive to unseat Speaker J. Fonati Koffa in Liberia's House of Representatives has led to a legislative crisis that exposes not only deep political divisions but also a dangerous disregard for Liberia's Constitution. The situation has deteriorated into chaos, with lawmakers boycotting sessions and a simple majority holding separate meetings without the constitutional leadership in place. This reveals either a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution or a deliberate effort to ignore its provisions.
Chapter 5, Article 33 of the Constitution clearly outlines the requirements for conducting legislative business: "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." This clause leaves no room for ambiguity. If quorum is not met, those present are empowered to compel absent members to return. The Constitution anticipated the possibility of internal disagreements or tactical absenteeism, and it provides a clear remedy: compel attendance.
Yet, over the past several weeks, the House leadership has failed to invoke this power, and as a result, legislative business has come to a standstill. Lawmakers boycotting sessions to unseat Speaker Koffa are not just neglecting their duties--they are violating the Constitution. The leadership's inaction has allowed the situation to spiral into an impasse, with both sides complicit in undermining the legislative process.
The Constitution is not a tool of convenience. Lawmakers cannot ignore the provisions they find inconvenient while clinging to those that benefit them. Article 33 is clear--attendance can and should be compelled. If lawmakers refuse to perform their duties, the leadership of the House must enforce this provision to restore order.
Perhaps the most egregious violation of the Constitution in this crisis is the decision by the majority bloc to hold a separate session without the constitutional leadership. Article 33 clearly stipulates that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is the presiding officer. The decision by the majority to conduct legislative business without the Speaker is not only a procedural breach but also a violation of the Constitution.
The rationale behind this separate session appears to be a protest against Speaker Koffa's leadership or an attempt to showcase numerical superiority. However, numerical superiority alone does not grant the majority the authority to bypass constitutional procedures. The Constitution requires that all legislative sessions be presided over by the Speaker, who was elected to serve a six-year term. Any session held without the Speaker is, by definition, unconstitutional and illegal.
This tactic sets a dangerous precedent. If lawmakers can bypass constitutional rules whenever they disagree with the leadership, they undermine the very institution they serve. Allowing this separate session to stand sends the message that political convenience outweighs the rule of law. It opens the door for future legislatures to ignore constitutional procedures whenever they face internal opposition, creating a culture of expediency rather than adherence to legal principles.
The current crisis in the House of Representatives could have been resolved much earlier had the leadership invoked the Constitution's clear directive to compel attendance. Article 33 does not allow lawmakers to boycott sessions to block legislative business. The clause to "compel attendance" exists precisely to prevent such scenarios.
By failing to invoke this constitutional power, the leadership has allowed absentee lawmakers to hijack the legislative process. This failure is not just a political misstep--it is a violation of the Constitution itself. Those present in the House have an obligation to ensure that the legislative process continues, and this includes compelling absent members to return.
The importance of this provision cannot be overstated. The Constitution anticipated that internal disputes would arise, and it offers a solution: compel the attendance of lawmakers who are absent for political reasons. The refusal to invoke this power reflects a deeper problem within the Legislature--a tendency to treat the Constitution as a suggestion rather than the supreme law of the land.
A critical aspect of this crisis is the misuse of legislative immunity. Article 42 grants lawmakers immunity from arrest and prosecution for opinions expressed and votes cast in the exercise of their official duties. However, this privilege does not extend to dereliction of duty. Lawmakers cannot use their immunity to shield themselves from accountability when they refuse to perform the responsibilities for which they were elected.
Boycotting sessions to achieve a political objective is not an exercise of free speech--it is a dereliction of duty. The Constitution provides lawmakers with immunity to protect them from persecution for their legislative actions, but it does not allow them to neglect their responsibilities. The decision by lawmakers to absent themselves from sessions to block the legislative process is an abuse of this privilege and a violation of the public trust.
Additionally, Speaker Koffa has sought the intervention of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitutional provisions regarding this crisis. However, the Speaker's opponents have signaled their intent to disregard any ruling that emerges from the Justice in Chambers, further illustrating their willingness to undermine constitutional governance.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The leadership of the House must invoke its constitutional power to compel the attendance of absentee lawmakers. This authority is enshrined in the Constitution, and it is their duty to use it to ensure that the legislative process continues. Lawmakers who refuse to attend sessions must be held accountable for their actions, as their deliberate absenteeism is a clear violation of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the majority bloc must cease its illegal practice of holding separate sessions without the constitutional leadership. The Constitution is explicit: the Speaker is the presiding officer of the House, and any attempt to conduct legislative business without the Speaker is unconstitutional and illegal. The majority must respect the rule of law and follow the procedures outlined in the Constitution for resolving disputes.
The Constitution offers a clear remedy for resolving internal disputes in the House, but it has been ignored in favor of political tactics. The time has come for the House of Representatives to restore order by adhering to the Constitution and ensuring that the principles of governance, accountability, and transparency are upheld.
