LIBERIA, A NATION proud of its democratic strides, is once again grappling with a constitutional crisis that threatens the very fabric of its governance and social cohesion.
THE ONGOING DISPUTE within the House of Representatives, coupled with the recent violent dispersal of peaceful protesters, underscores a troubling disregard for the rule of law and the principles of democracy enshrined in the Liberian Constitution.
AT THE HEART of the crisis is a divided House of Representatives, split into two factions: the "Majority Block," which has elected Representative Richard Koon as Speaker, and the "Minority Block," led by the legitimately elected Speaker, J. Fonati Koffa.
The Majority Block's refusal to attend sessions under Speaker Koffa and its decision to hold parallel sessions presided over by Koon flagrantly violate Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution.
THE SUPREME COURT has already ruled that any action or sitting by members of the Legislature contrary to these constitutional provisions is ultra vires, beyond the powers granted by law, and, therefore, null and void. Yet, the defiance persists, creating a dangerous precedent that undermines the authority of the Judiciary and the rule of law.
THIS SITUATION IS more than a political impasse; it is a constitutional crisis with far-reaching implications. When lawmakers, the very individuals entrusted to uphold the Constitution, flout its provisions, public trust in the institutions meant to safeguard Liberia's democracy erodes.
AGAINST THIS BACKDROP of political turmoil, concerned citizens exercised their constitutional right to peaceful assembly on December 17, 2024. Their protest, a call for lawmakers to respect the rule of law, was a necessary and timely reminder that power resides with the people and that governance must align with constitutional principles. However, the response of the Liberian National Police was deeply troubling. The decision to disperse the protest using tear gas, force, and arrests--under the pretext of accommodating the President's visit to sign a book of condolence for the late Vice President, was a gross overreach.
THE POLICE CITED the President's visit as the justification for dispersing the protesters, using tear gas and force. This decision suggests that the President's safety and movement were prioritized over the citizens' right to peaceful assembly. While protecting the President is legitimate, the aggressive suppression of the protest undermined the credibility of this rationale, leading to public outcry.
A PRESIDENT IS not compelled to personally attend any location if the risks outweigh the benefits, especially when tensions are high. Other arrangements, such as signing the book of condolence at an alternative location or rescheduling, could have been explored to prevent the clash.
THE DECISION TO proceed despite the protest reflects either a disregard for the volatile situation or a deliberate act, which critics could interpret as an attempt to confront or overshadow the protest.
WHILE THE LOSS of a statesperson warrants respect, it cannot be used as a justification to suppress constitutionally protected rights. The violent suppression of peaceful protest is not only a violation of fundamental human rights but also an affront to the memory of the late Vice President, whose legacy should inspire unity, not division. Liberia stands at a crossroads. The ongoing legislative crisis and the police's heavy-handed actions highlight systemic challenges that demand immediate attention.
THE RIGHT TO peaceful assembly is sacrosanct. The Government must investigate the police's actions during the December 17 protest, hold those responsible accountable, and ensure such abuses do not recur. Both the legislature and the executive must demonstrate a commitment to the rule of law and constitutional governance. This includes fostering dialogue, upholding judicial decisions, and prioritizing the people's interests over political ambitions.
LIBERIA'S HISTORY IS a testament to the resilience of its people and institutions. However, resilience alone is not enough. Leaders at all levels must rise above partisan divides and act in the national interest. The current crisis is a test of Liberia's democracy. It is a moment for reflection, courage, and decisive action to reaffirm the principles that bind the nation together. The rule of law must prevail, and the voices of the people must be heard, for Liberia's democracy to endure and thrive.
IT IS DIFFICULT TO comprehend conclusively whether the President was forced or compelled to attend the location of the protest on December 17, 2024. However, the circumstances surrounding his visit to the Capitol Building, where the protest was taking place, raise valid questions about timing, intent, and the resulting escalation of tensions.
THE PRESIDENT'S VISIT to the Capitol Building was reportedly to sign the book of condolence for the late Vice President, a solemn and necessary act of national leadership. However, this event coincided with a highly publicized and ongoing protest at the same location, known to have been planned weeks in advance. The timing raises questions about whether the President could have rescheduled or relocated this symbolic act to avoid escalating tensions.
SOME PROTESTERS ACCUSE the President of aligning with the so-called majority block, which has unconstitutionally elected Richard Koon as Speaker. This perception, whether accurate or not, complicates the President's presence near the protest, as it could be interpreted as a show of support for one faction over the other.
THE BOOK OF condolence for the late Vice President is an important ceremonial gesture, but it was not an urgent or time-sensitive matter that required immediate attention at the protest site. By proceeding with his visit despite the ongoing protest, the President effectively prioritized his symbolic act over the citizens' constitutional right to peaceful assembly.
THE PRESIDENT HAD an opportunity to show leadership by engaging with the protesters or addressing their concerns. Instead, his decision to proceed with a ceremonial event sent a message that their grievances were secondary to his agenda.
GIVEN THE ACCUSATIONS that the President is aligned with the majority block in the Legislative crisis, his actions appeared to dismiss or undermine the concerns of citizens protesting in defense of constitutional governance. This perception, whether accurate or not, further alienates citizens and erodes trust in President Bokai's leadership.
ARTICLE 17 OF the Liberian Constitution guarantees the right to peaceful assembly. The forceful dispersal of the protest to accommodate the President's visit constitutes a breach of this fundamental right. The use of tear gas, physical force, and arrests inflicted harm on citizens exercising their rights.
THIS NOT ONLY endangered their physical well-being but also created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, discouraging future expressions of dissent. In a democracy, the government is expected to prioritize the interests and rights of its citizens, even when those citizens are critical of its actions. By failing to do so, the President weakened public confidence in the administration's commitment to democratic values.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Conclusion:
WHILE THE PRESIDENT may not have been forced or compelledto go to the Capitol Building, his decision to proceed amid a volatile protest was, at best, a lapse in judgment and, at worst, a calculated political move. Regardless of intent, the visit and its aftermath have fueled public perception of bias and insensitivity toward the citizens' grievances. Leadership in such moments requires sensitivity, tact, and a commitment to de-escalation, qualities that appear to have been lacking in this instance.
THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS during the December 17, 2024, protest at the Capitol Building, particularly his decision to proceed with signing the book of condolence at the same site, strongly suggest that his interests may have been prioritized over the rights and welfare of the citizens. The President's decision to proceed with his visit to the Capitol Building during the protest placed his personal and symbolic interests above the rights and welfare of the citizens.
THIS DECISION ESCALATED tensions and undermined public trust in his leadership. Leaders must demonstrate a balance between asserting authority and respecting the rights of the people they serve. In this case, the President's actions leaned heavily toward the former, at the expense of constitutional rights and public welfare. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the need for greater sensitivity, accountability, and prioritization of citizens' rights in governance.
