The Liberian political and legal landscape is witnessing a growing constitutional debate as efforts by members of the House of Representatives of Liberia to remove Montserrado County District #10 Representative Yekeh Y. Kolubah draw sharp criticism from prominent legal minds and political actors.
At the center of the debate is renowned legal scholar and statesman Tiawan Saye Gongloe, who has warned that the push to impeach or expel Kolubah risks undermining Liberia's constitutional order.
"The law must guide politics, not the other way around," Gongloe declared in a strongly worded commentary that has since sparked national debate.
Gongloe's position is rooted in a strict interpretation of the country's constitutional framework -- particularly the principle of separation of powers.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
Responding to reports that allegations of treason may be part of the case against Kolubah, Gongloe argued that such accusations fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the courts, not the Legislature.
"Treason is a criminal offense, not a political accusation. The Legislature is not a criminal court and cannot determine guilt or innocence," he emphasized.
According to him, if state authorities -- including the police--believe Kolubah has committed a crime, the proper course is clear -- arrest, formal charges, and prosecution before a competent court of law.
Gongloe warned that bypassing this process by using legislative mechanisms such as impeachment or expulsion could create a dangerous precedent.
"Any attempt to substitute criminal prosecution with political action erodes the doctrine of separation of powers," he cautioned.
Drawing from his tenure as Solicitor General, Gongloe noted that even sitting lawmakers accused of crimes were subjected to judicial processes -- not political sanctions.
Lawmakers' Perspective
While Gongloe's intervention emphasizes legal safeguards, lawmakers pushing for action against Kolubah appear motivated by a different set of concerns -- institutional discipline, national security, and political stability.
Although the full details of the allegations have not been officially disclosed, sources within the Legislature suggest that Kolubah's statements and conduct may have crossed what some lawmakers consider acceptable boundaries for public officials.
From their perspective, several factors may justify legislative action, protecting institutional integrity as lawmakers may view Kolubah's conduct as undermining the credibility and decorum of the Legislature.
There is also the issue of national security concerns, and if statements attributed to him are interpreted as inciting or threatening, legislators may feel compelled to act swiftly to prevent instability.
The lawmakers are also arguing the issue of maintaining order within the House, noting that they have internal rules governing member conduct, and enforcement of these rules is seen as essential to its functioning.
For proponents of disciplinary action, the issue is less about criminal guilt and more about whether Kolubah's actions are compatible with the responsibilities of public office.
The unfolding situation highlights a critical tension in democratic governance--Where does legislative discipline end and judicial authority begin?
Gongloe's argument suggests that criminal matters must be handled exclusively by the courts, legislative overreach could weaken democratic institutions.
Meanwhile, lawmakers appear to argue -- implicitly or explicitly -- that the Legislature has the right to discipline its members and certain conduct may warrant removal even without a criminal conviction.
This tension is not unique to Liberia but is particularly sensitive given the country's history of political instability and the need to safeguard democratic norms.
The controversy has drawn reactions from across Liberia's political spectrum.
Opposition leader Alexander B. Cummings criticized the move as politically inconsistent, even while distancing himself from Kolubah's rhetoric.
"The same firebrand politics once defended cannot now be condemned simply because they target the current regime," Cummings said, defending the principle of free speech.
He also warned that expelling Kolubah could disenfranchise voters in District #10 and impose unnecessary costs on the state through a by-election.
Similarly, former official Karishma Pelham-Raad urged restraint, suggesting that suspension -- rather than expulsion -- would be a more measured response.
"Loyalty should be rewarded with loyalty," she remarked, referencing Kolubah's past political alignment.
Meanwhile, diaspora voices such as journalist Cheechiay Jablasone have taken a harder line, calling for prosecution if evidence of treason exists.
"I don't just support expelling Yekeh. He should be charged, tried, and imprisoned if found guilty," Jablasone argued. "This should teach unpatriotic Liberians a lesson, as well as serve as deterrence. No Liberian who supports Guinea's occupation should go free."
He added, "Yekeh has repeatedly heaped insults publicly on Mr. and Mrs. Boakai and he was never penalized. That is not an insult of any public official, this is treason against the state. People MUST stop equating such unpatriotic behavior with any internal political rancor. Every act of treason MUST be punished. It's the law."
Another critical dimension of the debate is freedom of expression.
Gongloe cautioned against criminalizing political speech, even when controversial or unpopular.
"In functioning democracies, dissenting views do not automatically constitute treason," he noted.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
This raises a fundamental question:
Should lawmakers be punished for provocative rhetoric, or protected under democratic principles of free speech?
On specific claims -- such as the reported dispute over the Makona River -- Gongloe advocated for a fact-based, independent inquiry, urging President Joseph Nyuma Boakai to establish a commission.
He referenced the precedent set by William R. Tolbert following the 1979 rice riots, where an independent investigation helped establish facts and guide national response.
As the House of Representatives of Liberia moves forward with its proceedings, the Kolubah case is shaping into more than a disciplinary matter -- it is becoming a test of Liberia's commitment to constitutional governance.
For Gongloe and like-minded legal thinkers, the priority is clear: protect the rule of law and due process.
For lawmakers seeking action, the focus appears to be preserving institutional authority and national stability.
The challenge now lies in striking a balance between these competing imperatives.
"If the House proceeds on this path," Gongloe warned, "it risks undermining constitutional order and weakening democratic institutions."
With public scrutiny intensifying and political stakes rising, the outcome of this case could set a lasting precedent -- not only for Rep. Kolubah's future, but for how Liberia navigates the delicate boundary between law and politics.
