There is a troubling pattern beginning to take shape in Liberia's House of Representatives -- one that raises a fundamental question not just about a single lawmaker, but about the integrity of the institution itself. First, it was Speaker Fonati Koffa, caught in a procedural tug-of-war that tested the limits of legislative authority. Now, it is Representative Yekeh Kolubah, expelled under circumstances that are increasingly difficult to separate from political expediency.
At first glance, the Kolubah episode appears to be a matter of discipline. A lawmaker made a controversial statement about the Makona River boundary dispute -- one that many considered provocative, even offensive. The House acted. Case closed.
But scratch beneath the surface, and a more unsettling picture emerges.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
As free speech advocate Cllr. Tiawan Saye Gongloe argues with clarity, the issue is not whether Kolubah was right or wrong. It is whether what he said amounted to a violation of law. And by every available legal standard, it did not. It was not treason. It was not incitement. It was not espionage. It was, at its core, an opinion -- controversial, perhaps reckless, but nonetheless protected under the Constitution's guarantees of freedom of thought and expression.
That distinction is not academic. It is the line that separates discipline from suppression.
In a constitutional democracy, speech is countered with speech -- not punishment. If a lawmaker speaks wrongly, his colleagues are not powerless. They can challenge him, rebut him, expose his errors. But when the response shifts from argument to expulsion, the Legislature risks stepping beyond its constitutional lane and into the realm of political enforcement.
That is where the Kolubah case begins to echo the Koffa saga. In both instances, procedure -- meant to be the neutral machinery of governance -- appears increasingly pliable. Not fixed. Not predictable. But adaptable to the needs of the moment.
Consider the numbers. Article 38 of the Constitution is unambiguous: expelling a sitting lawmaker requires a two-thirds majority -- 49 out of 73 members. The House claims it met that threshold. But at least three lawmakers have publicly disowned their signatures or withdrawn their consent before the vote. If those claims hold, the number drops below the constitutional requirement.
This is not a minor discrepancy. It is the difference between a lawful act and a nullity.
Even more troubling is the process itself. No roll-call vote has been made public. Instead, the House relies on a signature sheet now under dispute. For a decision of such gravity -- the removal of an elected representative -- this lack of transparency is not just inadequate; it is dangerous. It invites suspicion that the outcome may have been secured first, and the process arranged afterward.
And then there is the matter of timing. The expulsion reportedly proceeded despite a stay order from the Supreme Court. If true, this raises a separate but equally serious concern: not just about internal legislative procedure, but about respect for the broader constitutional order.
Taken together, these elements point to a deeper institutional problem. The issue is no longer Kolubah's statement. It is whether the rules of the Legislature are being applied consistently -- or selectively.
This is where political expediency enters the frame.
Kolubah is no ordinary lawmaker. He is confrontational, outspoken, and often at odds with his colleagues. He is, in many ways, the embodiment of dissent within the House. Removing such a figure may bring short-term order. It may even be popular within certain circles. But if the process used to remove him bends constitutional safeguards, then the cost is far greater than the benefit.
Because today, it is Kolubah. Tomorrow, it could be another lawmaker -- perhaps one exposing corruption, challenging leadership, or simply holding an unpopular view.
That is how precedents work. They do not stay contained.
Liberia's recent history offers painful lessons about what happens when dissent is treated as disloyalty and when institutions allow emotion or political calculation to override law. The framers of the 1986 Constitution understood this. That is why they embedded protections not just for agreeable speech, but for speech that unsettles, provokes, and even offends.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The House of Representatives is not merely a political arena. It is a constitutional body. Its authority is real -- but not unlimited. It is bound, as all branches of government are, by the very Constitution it is sworn to uphold.
If procedure becomes a weapon -- flexible enough to discipline one voice today and silence another tomorrow -- then the Legislature risks eroding the very foundation of its legitimacy.
This is the question now before the House: is it enforcing discipline, or consolidating control?
The answer will not be found in statements or justifications, but in whether the institution is willing to subject its own actions to the same standard it demands of others -- law, not politics.
Because if this is Koffa 2.0, then Liberia is not just witnessing isolated controversies. It is confronting a pattern. And patterns, left unchecked, have a way of becoming practice.
