The House leadership has issued a stem warning to spending entities not to appear before members of the majority bloc, days following the Supreme Court's decision in the House impasse.
Monrovia, December 9, 2024/ Embattled House Speaker Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa appears to be stamping his authority at the House of Representatives following last Friday's Supreme Court verdict that nullified the election of Rep. Richard N. Koon as Speaker by the majority bloc.
In an official statement issued over the weekend, Speaker Koffa warned all spending entities not to honor a request from members of the majority bloc to appear for a budget hearing this week, as that group had announced.
In the statement signed by embattled Speaker Koffa, the leadership of the House of Representatives noted that any invitation for any hearing not scheduled by Rep. Dixon Seboe, Chairman of Ways Means and
Finance would be ultra vires, and no decision taken therefrom will be cognizable at law.
Speaker Koffa had filed a writ before the Superior Court seeking its intervention into the constitutionality of some actions taken by the "majority bloc," holding sessions, suspending members, restructuring committees, taking possession of the budget, and electing a speaker.
The embattled speaker, in the statement, encouraged absentee members (members of the majority bloc who have been holding separate sessions) "to seek clarification of the Supreme Court's ruling from competent legal authorities if they are unclear about its decision" instead of engaging in actions that undermine the rule of law."
What does the Supreme Court ruling say?
The Supreme Court, in its landmark ruling on Friday, December 6, said, "any sittings or actions by members of the Legislature not in conformity with the intent of Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution are ultra vires and void. "Ultra vires," meaning it was beyond their power and authority to do so. Hence, members of the House of Representatives are to conduct themselves accordingly."
Article 33 of the Liberian Constitution requires a quorum to hold sessions, while Article 49 refers to the presiding officers, including the election and removal from office of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, and other officers.
Article 33 states: "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..."
Article 49 states: "The House of Representatives shall elect once every six years a Speaker who shall be the presiding officer of that body, a Deputy Speaker, and such other officers as shall ensure the proper functioning of the House. The speaker, the deputy speaker, and other officers so elected may be removed from office for cause by a resolution of two-thirds of the members of the House.
However, while making clear its constitutional limitations on legislative proceedings and its authority to resolve such impasse, the Supreme Court decision read by Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh, maintained that any legislative action not in conformity with Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution is "ultra vires" and void.
On the issue of mandamus to compel absentee lawmakers to come to session, the Supreme Court said that in the absence of a constitutional provision, it cannot intervene. That is, there is no mechanism within the constitution that gives the court power to compel absentee lawmakers to go to session.
What does the Supreme Court's decision mean?
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
So, the Court said, "any sittings and actions by the Legislature" (the "majority bloc") that are not in line with Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution are beyond or outside of their constitutional powers (ultra vires). That means all the actions that have been taken by the "majority bloc" and certain members of the House, including holding sessions without the speaker who is presiding, suspending members and reconstituting committees, and electing new speakers are illegal-that is, they had no authority to do the things they did.
Both sides claim victory.
However, members of the "majority bloc" also have their own interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling. The majority bloc considers that when the Supreme Court used the Latin phrase "Ultra vires" in its decision, it meant that as a court, it had no jurisdiction over the political impasse at the capitol. Therefore, it claims to have won the case.
