What's next for embattled House Speaker Jonathan Fonati Koffa now that the Snowe inspired ECOWAS Parliamentary delegation has failed to achieve its objective and has now departed the country?
The delegation arrived in Liberia shortly after Supreme Court Justice in-Chambers Yamie Gbeisay failed to grant Koffa his much sought Writ of Prohibition intended to place a stay order on proceedings being conducted by the Majority bloc.
The refusal of Justice in-Chambers Yamie Gbeisay to grant the Writ of Prohibition and the stubborn insistence of the Majority Bloc to continue holding sessions in the Joint Assembly Hall under the gavel of Deputy Speaker Thomas Fallah apparently infuriated Speaker Koffa and his band of supporters to the point where they resorted to the use of violence to wheel their colleagues into line.
What made matters worse and infuriated them even more was the fact that officials of the Executive branch had responded to citations from the body to appear before it in the Joint Assembly Hall.
And the world bore witness to the spectacle -- an armed invasion and storming of the Capitol by thuggish elements led by Representatives Marvin Cole, Eugene Kollie and alleged former drug peddler Edward Papie Flomo aka "Color Green".
In the wake of those developments, calls have come from the public for the prosecution of all those involved in the armed invasion and storming of the Capitol but the Justice Ministry has yet, for unexplained reasons, to proffer criminal charges against them.
Meanwhile Speaker Koffa appears unrelenting in his bid to hold on to the Post despite his prolonged inability to muster the requisite numbers to constitute a quorum for the conduct of business although he has made several failed attempts.
His legal team headed by Cllr. Arthur Johnson, has since filed a Writ of Mandamus before the Justice in-Chambers seeking to compel members of the Majority Bloc to return to House Chambers to sit under his gavel of authority. But just what is a Writ of Mandamus and what is its purpose?
According to Legal Dictionary, a Writ of Mandamus refers to an order by a court to a lesser government official to perform an act required by law, which he has refused or neglected to do. This type of court order is a remedy that may be sought if a governmental agency, public authority, or corporation in service of the government, fails or refuses to do its public or statutory duty.
Further, according to Legal Dictionary, "the purpose of Mandamus is to provide a prompt resolution to a defect of justice. This is applied to situations in which a person has a specific right, but no legal remedy has been provided for enforcing that right. A writ of mandamus, also known as a "writ of mandate," does not address the prospect of injury or loss caused by the failure of a government official or entity to act, but provides an immediate legal remedy in the form of a direct order to the official or entity to do its duty. In this way, a writ of mandamus is an "equitable remedy," left to the discretion of the court.
Types of Mandamus
More to the above, according to Legal Dictionary, "depending on the circumstances of the matter, a court may order any of three types of mandamus. These include:
1. Alternative Mandamus - an order often issued when an application for writ of mandamus has been made. The alternative mandamus allows the defendant to either perform the action demanded, or appear before the court to give good reason for not performing it.
2. Peremptory Mandamus - a categorical command to the defendant to perform the act in question, with no choice or alternative given. The peremptory mandamus is issued when the defendant failed to both perform the act, and to appear before the court as ordered in the alternative mandamus.
3. Continuing Mandamus - an order issued to a lesser government official, or a lower authority, to perform its duty promptly for an unspecified period of time, in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Legal Requirements for a Petition for Writ of Mandamus
According to Legal Dictionary, "a person requesting a writ of mandamus must be able to show the court that he has a legal right to force the government agency or public servant to perform the specified action, or to refrain from doing a specified act. That duty must be a duty of public nature, and it must be crucial, rather than discretionary. It is unlikely that the court will issue a writ of mandamus if relief can be obtained through other means available to the petitioner, such as an appeal."
In the case at bar, Speaker Koffa in the absence of a quorum or his inability to constitute a quorum means he has no legal right to force his colleagues to sit in the same hall under the gavel of his authority.
And so on which part of the Constitution does he seek reliance to compel his colleagues to sit in the main chambers. To the best of my understanding, the Constitution under Article 33 simply states that both Houses should meet or sit in the same city. The basic requirement for constituting a sitting of the House of Representatives is a QUORUM and, in the absence of the Speaker and or Deputy, the QUORUM can elect a Speaker Pro Tempore to preside.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
More to this, note the deliberate language couched in Article 33 that says when both Houses meet in Joint Session the PRESIDING OFFICER of the House shall preside. The language specifically states Presiding Officer and not SPEAKER because it is within the realm of possibility that the Speaker may be incapacitated as is the case now with sitting Speaker without the ability to constitute a quorum.
That Speaker Koffa, a lawyer by training who is supposed to be versed in the law is going back to the Supreme Court seeking a Writ of Madamus to compel members of the Majority Bloc to convene under his gavel of authority when the very Supreme Court had earlier rejected his Writ of Prohibition seeking to compel his colleagues who constitute a quorum from convening, suggests a strong degree of desperation on his part.
This is because the Supreme Court will more likely than not decline to issue his much sought after Writ of Mandamus. In such case he may have to take his case to the ECOWAS Court. But even that would not help him. But what in the world can convince a drowning man to avoid clutching at a straw?
And so we ask what's next for embattled Speaker Jonathan Fonati Koffa, meaning, should he not cut his losses and throw in the towel? I think so.
