A high-stakes disciplinary hearing into Montserrado County District #10 Representative Yekeh Kolubah descended into controversy on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, after the House Committee on Rules, Order and Administration denied his legal team the right to actively participate -- triggering a walkout that has intensified questions about due process within the Legislature.
The Committee's decision, based on its interpretation of House procedures, restricted Kolubah's lawyers to an advisory role, barring them from speaking unless expressly recognized. The ruling immediately heightened tensions around allegations tied to the Liberia-Guinea border dispute and sharpened concerns about whether the proceedings met constitutional standards of fairness.
Kolubah's legal team -- led by former Associate Justice Cllr. Kabineh J. Ja'neh and including Cllr. Jonathan T. Massaquoi and Cllr. Moriah Yeakula-Korkpor -- had, a day earlier, formally challenged the foundation of the hearing itself. In an April 14, 2026, communication to Committee Chairman Rep. James Kolleh, the lawyers argued that the citation served on their client was fundamentally deficient.
"We have reviewed the citation for hearing served on him and find it lacking sufficient information to properly represent him," the lawyers wrote, signaling early resistance to the process that would later culminate in the walkout.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
In that letter, the defense invoked due process principles, insisting on full disclosure of the evidence to be used against the lawmaker before any hearing could proceed. They specifically requested access to all statements -- audio, video, or written -- attributed to Kolubah, the Government of Liberia's official position referenced in the citation, and proof of claims that his remarks were "celebrated and disseminated" by Guinean authorities. They also asked the Committee to provide the governing House rules for the proceedings.
"Having adequate notice of the evidence against him is a requirement under the principle of due process," the legal team emphasized, while requesting a five- to seven-day period to review the materials and prepare a defense.
Those requests were denied.
Instead, the Committee pressed ahead with the hearing, maintaining that members appearing before it must speak for themselves. The refusal to both discloses the requested evidence in advance and allow counsel to directly address the panel became the immediate trigger for the protest.
Moments after the ruling, Kolubah and his legal team exited the proceedings.
Speaking to reporters outside, the embattled lawmaker condemned the process as unfair and politically driven, arguing that the Committee's posture effectively stripped him of a meaningful opportunity to defend himself. He maintained his earlier position on the disputed border, framing the proceedings as an attempt to silence dissent.
Despite the boycott, Chairman Kolleh signaled that the Committee would proceed regardless, stressing that Kolubah's absence would not derail its mandate. The hearing continued, relying primarily on documentary submissions and the complaint before the panel.
In a notable development, Inspector General of Police Gregory Coleman--who had earlier filed a communication related to the matter--was excused from giving oral testimony. Instead, the Committee leaned on a formal complaint submitted by Montserrado County District #3 Representative Sumo Mulbah.
Mulbah alleges that Kolubah made statements suggesting that disputed territory along the Liberia-Guinea border belongs to Guinea--remarks he argues constitute a "gross breach of duty, misconduct in office and violation of his oath." The complaint contends that such assertions undermine Liberia's sovereignty and weaken its diplomatic standing.
The legal and political stakes are significant. The complaint cites Article 62 of the 1986 Constitution, which outlines grounds for impeachment, alongside Article 20(a), which guarantees due process and the right of an accused to be informed of the charges against them.
Following the complaint, Plenary mandated its Rules Committee to investigate and report within ten days--a timeline that Kolubah's lawyers had also flagged as problematic given the lack of disclosure.
The disciplinary effort has reportedly gained traction within the 73-member House, with at least 36 lawmakers backing the push. However, expulsion--the most severe sanction--requires a two-thirds majority, or 49 votes, meaning proponents must still consolidate broader support.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
If successful, such action would remove Kolubah from office before the end of his term, stripping him of his legislative mandate and representation of his constituents. The case also marks the latest in a string of confrontations involving the outspoken lawmaker, who was previously suspended for 30 session days in March 2025.
Beyond the immediate outcome, the episode is fueling a wider debate within Liberia's political space. While some lawmakers argue the proceedings are necessary to defend national interest, others warn that the handling of the case risks setting a precedent where legislative discipline overrides constitutional safeguards.
Nimba County District #7 Representative Musa Hassan Bility was among those raising alarm, describing the process as politically charged. "The plot to remove Hon. Yekeh Kolubah is clear and real. Sadly, we are entering a dangerous phase of our democratic governance," he said.
As the Committee moves to finalize its report for Plenary, the central question now extends beyond Kolubah's fate: whether the Legislature can assert its disciplinary authority without eroding the due process protections it is equally bound to uphold.
