In a tense and revealing hearing before the full bench of the Supreme Court of Liberia on March 26, the ongoing leadership battle in the House of Representatives took a dramatic legal turn as justices grilled lawyers on both sides of the crisis -- casting sharp criticism at the so-called "majority bloc" of lawmakers while also probing the legal foundation of the embattled Speaker J. Fonati Koffa's Bill of Information.
While the justices did not render a final ruling, their line of questioning offered significant insight into how the Court views the deepening impasse. Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene Gyapay Yuoh led the charge, with a visible display of frustration toward the conduct of the majority bloc, which had organized a parallel legislative session and installed Montserrado County Representative Richard Koon as Speaker -- despite no formal removal of Koffa through constitutional means.
"You cannot have a duly elected Speaker and yet pretend he no longer exists," Chief Justice Yuoh declared from the bench. "This is what creates chaos."
The hearing centered on a Bill of Information filed by Koffa's legal team, led by Cllr. Arthur Johnson, which asked the Court to intervene in what they view as a violation of its earlier opinion on the matter. In January, the Supreme Court had ruled that "the status quo ante must be maintained" and that the Legislature must follow due process. The justices also emphasized that "no official of government has the authority to interfere with the internal workings of the Legislature, save where there is a violation of the Constitution or any statute." But did that opinion amount to a binding judgment or mandate? That question -- raised forcefully during the hearing -- may prove decisive.
As the justices took turns interrogating the attorneys, they appeared united in their disapproval of the manner in which the majority bloc proceeded to organize a session without the Speaker, pass resolutions, and effectively operate as a separate chamber.
"It can create chaos," Yuoh repeated, linking the conduct of the majority bloc to the broader unrest that culminated in the December 18 fire that gutted the Capitol Building. Though no direct accusation was made by the Court regarding culpability for the fire, the implication was clear: the deliberate circumvention of legislative procedure had created fertile ground for instability.
The Liberia National Police have since launched a criminal investigation into what they have labeled an act of arson -- and identified Speaker Koffa and several of his allies as persons of interest. Three former fire chiefs from the United States were invited by the Government of Liberia to investigate the Capitol fire. Their final report, which was submitted to the Government over a month ago, has yet to be released.
But in court, it was the majority bloc's methods that came under more immediate scrutiny.
Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, addressing Cllr. Varney Sherman, the lead counsel for the majority bloc, pushed back hard against Sherman's argument that the House rules permitted sessions to proceed without the Speaker present. Sherman insisted, "The speaker need not be present," citing internal legislative procedures. But the justices retorted that legislative rules cannot override constitutional requirements, especially regarding the role of a duly elected Speaker.
"If the Speaker is not removed according to the law, you cannot ignore him," Justice Yusuf Kaba chimed in. "Otherwise, what's the point of law and order?"
However, it wasn't a one-sided affair. The justices also turned their gaze on the foundation of the Bill of Information itself, pressing Koffa's lawyer, Cllr. Arthur Johnson, to explain under what authority the filing was made. Chief Justice Yuoh repeatedly asked whether the Court's previous opinion had been accompanied by a mandate or judgment, as required for a valid Bill of Information under the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court.
Johnson stumbled under the pressure. "Your Honor, the opinion was clear in its intent," he said, but could not point to an actual mandate or judgment.
This raised serious concerns about whether the Bill of Information -- which is only permissible when someone is attempting to interfere with a mandate or judgment of the Supreme Court -- had any legal basis at all.
According to the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court:
"A Bill of Information will lie to prevent a Judge or any Judicial Officer who attempts to execute the mandate of the Supreme Court in an improper manner from doing so. A Bill of Information will also lie to prevent anyone whomsoever from interfering with the Judgment and/or Mandate of the Supreme Court."
The rule further warns:
"Any counsellor who files a Bill of Information before this Court assigning reasons therefor other than the reasons expressly prescribed by these Rules shall be penalized by the imposition of a fine, suspension or disbarment."
That language appeared to hang over the courtroom like a cloud as the hearing continued, and the justices pressed Johnson to clarify if his filing violated these provisions. "Where is the mandate?" Yuoh asked again. "Can you show us what judgment you claim has been violated?"
Johnson was unable to do so, prompting murmurs across the courtroom. This legal twist raises the possibility that Koffa's Bill of Information may be dismissed on procedural grounds -- even as the justices made it clear they disapprove of the majority bloc's conduct.
Despite the uncertainty surrounding the legal footing of the Bill of Information, the hearing turned into a referendum on political excess. Chief Justice Yuoh reminded the courtroom that the Supreme Court does not take sides in legislative politics, but it will act when constitutional norms are breached.
Justice Jamesetta Howard-Wolokolie, often reserved, voiced concern that the actions of the majority bloc could send a dangerous precedent. "If lawmakers can meet outside the chamber, elect new leadership, and gain recognition from the Executive Branch, then we are no longer a constitutional democracy," she said.
For now, the justices have reserved ruling in the case, signaling that a decision will come only after further deliberations and voting among the full benches. But whatever the outcome, the hearing has laid bare the growing dysfunction at the heart of Liberia's Legislature -- and the delicate role the judiciary must play in trying to restore order.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
If Koffa's Bill of Information is dismissed on the grounds that no mandate or judgment was issued, it may open the door for the majority bloc to continue asserting their leadership unchallenged. But if the Court decides to rule more broadly -- perhaps issuing a formal mandate now, affirming the constitutional requirement for legislative procedure and leadership transition -- it could reset the balance of power and force a reckoning in the House.
In either case, the ruling will be more than legal; it will be political, shaping not only the speakership but the tone of governance in Liberia for months, and perhaps years to come but that's not all.
The current hearing also casts new light on the Supreme Court's earlier opinion in the matter -- an opinion that, while instructive, left considerable room for interpretation. Its ambiguity sparked a heightened public debate and deepened the rift between the rival factions in the House, each seizing on parts of the opinion to declare victory.
Without a definitive mandate or judgment, both the pro-Koffa bloc and the majority bloc claimed legitimacy, plunging the Legislature further into chaos. But the Court's tone yesterday was far more pronounced. Chief Justice Yuoh, who is expected to transition into retirement in June 2025, appeared unrestrained in her criticism. With her tenure nearing its end, she has perhaps found the space to speak more candidly unconcerned by potential reprisal from the very lawmakers now in turmoil before her bench.
