Monrovia — Liberia's Supreme Court has reserved a ruling in the crisis that has rocked the House of Representatives for over a month, leaving both parties on tenterhook.
Embattled House Speaker Koffa succeeded in securing a stay order last weekend as he continues to seek judicial intervention.
His action was prompted by the controversial election of Rep. Richard Nagbe Koon by absentee lawmakers who hold majority members of the House to be their new speaker.
But Koffa and his bloc of lawmakers in challenging Rep. Koon's election described their action as illegal, thus filling a petition before the Supreme Court of Liberia.
Over a month, the absentee lawmakers sought to oust Koffa but they could not obtain the required 49 lawmakers immediately as the embattled Speaker mounted resistance.
Lawyers representing the rival parties held arguments before the court on Wednesday, November 27, 2024, and the court reserved the ruling.
However, the high court did not say when it would hand down the ruling in the case.
Cllr. Koffa petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus, seeking a declarative judgment to render his removal by the majority bloc unconstitutional.
During the court hearing on Wednesday, the majority bloc was represented by Cllr. Varney Sherman, a former Senator for Grand Cape Mount County.
The majority bloc urged the Supreme Court to refrain from intervening in legislative matters.
It asserted that such issues are inherently political and do not violate any constitutional provisions.
"You will not get involved with legislative matters unless the process is unconstitutional," the majority bloc argued.
"The House of Representatives has the power to remove the Speaker and they have done that. So, leave it," Cllr. Sherman argued further.
The majority bloc contended that due process was followed in Koffa's removal.
According to the anti-Koffa lawmakers, on October 21, 2024, a letter was sent to Koffa, inviting him to a session convened by the majority bloc to ensure he received due process.
Although the letter was acknowledged on October 22, the majority bloc contended that Koffa did not attend the session.
The bloc stated that a complaint was filed, a committee was established, and a citation was issued, but Koffa chose to disregard the proceedings.
With this, the majority bloc prayed the court to leave the happenings at the Legislature, stating that it is political and violates no constitutional statute.
Notwithstanding, the petitioners prayed the court to declare the action of the majority bloc as unconstitutional.
The petitioners also told the court that the issue of plenary only exists when the speaker presides.
They argued that the house's rules provide that "legislative provision must adhere to constitutional provision."
Meanwhile, the Speaker through his representation before the court, Cllr. Arthur Johnson prayed the court to grant the petitioner's request.
He asserted that the removal of the speaker violates the Constitution and the house's standing rules.
In their prayer, they argued that the sitting of the majority bloc was unconstitutional because they refused to sit under a legitimate speaker.
As such, the pro-Koffa bloc argued that any decisions taken by the majority bloc were illegal, citing Article 33 of the 1986 Constitution.
"Whenever the House of Representatives and the Senate shall meet in a joint session, the presiding officer of the House Representatives shall preside."
They further argued: "We ask the Supreme Court to declare the action of the majority as unconstitutional as it will set the procedure for tomorrow."
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
They warned that if the court does not prohibit the majority bloc, the anti-Koffa lawmakers would repeat this whether right or wrong.
At the same time, the Ministry of Justice advised the Supreme Court to make a decision based on violation of constitutional matter.
"The Ministry of Justice prays this court to drop it."
The Ministry was invited not as a party, but as Dean of the Supreme Court Bar to advise whether or not the matter unfolding at the House of Representatives violates constitutional statute.
The Ministry noted that there is no constitutional statute violated.
The Ministry, in its prayer, stated that the matter before the court is questioning whether or not there is a violation of the constitutional statute, in keeping with Section 9.6 of the Civil Procedure Law and Section 2.2 of the Executive Law.
It insisted that there was no violation of the constitutional statute.
