Lawyers representing the legal interest of the embattled Speaker of the House of Representatives, Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa (Informants) accused Justice Minister N. Oswald Tweh of misinterpreting the December 6, opinion of the Supreme Court, in the case: IN RE: "THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CERTAIN ACTIONS TAKEN BY SOME MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 55TH LEGISLATURE (Respondents)."
In Koffa's bill of Information filed before the Supreme Court, Cllr. Arthur Johnson argued that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Liberia, Counselor N. Oswald Tweh, the Government's Chief Legal Officer, has contributed to the Majority Bloc's violation of the Court's Ruling by publicly issuing a legal opinion on December 10, 2024, addressed to the Minister of State for Presidential Affairs, in which the Minister of Justice falsely asserted "that Your Honors' Ruling and Final Judgment concluded that the sittings, actions and decisions of the Majority Bloc were lawful."
Cllr. Johnson further argues that the action of the Minister of Justice has further exacerbated the situation. "Informants submit that collectively the Respondents' action undermines the authority of this Honorable Court, the framework of our constitutional system of government and the stability of the entire nation."
Constitutional role of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General
According to Cllr. Johnson, by supporting the Majority Bloc's actions, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General has emboldened unconstitutional behavior and deepened the legislative crisis.
Citing the case: In Re C. Abayomi Cassell [1961] LRSC 22; 14 LLR 391 (1961) (19 May 1961), Johnson explained that this Court of Liberia describes the proper constitutional role of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General: "The Legislature is only primus inter pares with the other two branches of government; none is more important than the others; none can function without the others and still maintain the objectives of the Constitution; and none, in this sense, is either weaker or more potent than the others."
But, he noted that the judiciary is the anchor that holds stabilized government in balance; without it, vested interests might suffer, sacred rights might be violated, the constituted authority might be challenged, and in time, administrative chaos could result. Although the Constitution and the law do not require the Attorney General to give advice either to the President or to any head of a department without previous request, nevertheless, he argued, in the proper performance of his duties, he should advise on any matters which adversely affect public rights, whether asked to do so or not.
"The Attorney General must prepare opinions on all issues at the moment or that involve public interest," the bill of Information noted.
"However, these opinions might not be weighted in judicial decisions; they guide the government's inappropriate and lawful administration," Johnson adds.
"Whenever the constitutionality of a statute is challenged, the Supreme Court must test the statute as applied to a given case by the Constitution, and the Court's decision on such an issue decides that issue for all time," they argued. "If such a decision is against the statute, the law immediately loses its authority, usefulness, and validity and becomes a nullity."
In such cases, he explained, there is no necessity for legislative repeal or removal from the
statute books to affect the statute's invalidity.
This function, according to Johnson, also applies to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the actions of any of the two branches of the Government.
"Of the members of the President's cabinet, the Attorney General is the only one who might professionally or technically disagree in opinion with the President on any issue and be within the proper, proprietary, and legal performance of his duty; every other cabinet member must agree with the policy of the administration or resign," he said. "Any Attorney General who is either unable to or who fails to advise against any acts of government which, in his opinion, infringe the constitutional rights of the citizens is useless to the administration and unfit to continue in office because he thereby fails to be that efficient legal adviser to the President and bold protector of the rights of the citizens which the law requires him to be."
Johnson argues that the interpretation and principle expounded by the Supreme Court remains with the ages of our constitutional democracy and that the Attorney General is required to faithfully advise the Executive in upholding judicial supremacy in terms of interpretation of the law.
"To woefully and intentionally misguide the public and the Government, to disrespect the Supreme Court's ruling is indeed a dereliction of duty and contemptuous to the Supreme Court," Koffa's bill of Information argued.
In the instant case, they claim that the Attorney General intentionally disregarded the ruling and opinion of the Supreme Court.
Johnson therefore prayed the court to declare the actions of purported Speaker Richard Koon and Members of the Majority Bloc null and void abolition and sessions, hearings, or decisions are in violation of the Court's Ruling and Final Judgment, ultra vires and unconstitutional.
"Determine that actions of purported Speaker Koon and Deputy Speaker Thomas Fallah, and other Members of the Majority Bloc in defying the Court's Ruling and Final Judgment are contemptuous. And, order the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Counselor N. Oswald Tweh, to publicly recall his Opinion misinterpreting this Court's Ruling," Johnson prayed the Court.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
He also prayed the court to grant any further relief that may deem proper to restore constitutional order and uphold the rule of law in Liberia.
In its December 6 ruling, the Supreme Court held unequivocally [that] whether a simple majority is sitting or a lower number, in both cases a presiding officer, defined in
Article 49 of the Constitution is "the Speaker, and in his/her absence the Deputy
Speaker" must preside.
The court further ruled that 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.
"Hence, Members of the House of Representatives are to conduct themselves accordingly."
The court also ruled and determined that the sittings, decisions and actions that were previously taken were ultra vires, unauthorized and therefore illegal.
"Your Honors ordered the Members to conduct themselves in compliance with BOTH the quorum provisions of Article 33 as well as Article 49, which required the presence of the Speaker as the constitutional Presiding Officer."
