The anti-Fonati Koffa Speakership group has vowed to resist a writ of prohibition issued by the Supreme Court ordering a stay on all further proceedings and/or actions in the conflict at the House of Representatives.
On Friday, October 25, 2024, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa, and officers elected under the House’s Standing Rule petitioned the Temple of Justice for a writ of prohibition against the self-styled “Majority Bloc” of the House of Representatives, presumedly headed by Representatives Samuel G. Kogar and Richard Nagbe Koon.
Subsequently, the Associate Justice presiding in Chambers of the Supreme Court, His Honor Judge Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, Sr., cited the two parties to a conference with him on Monday, November 4, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in connection with the conflict. He ordered that the parties stay all further proceedings and/or actions in the matter pending the outcome of the conference.
But the anti-Koffa bloc has vowed not to honor the writ from the Supreme Court, observing that the National Legislature is a separate branch of government and that the Judiciary needs to respect the doctrine of separation of power.
Speaking to the Hot Pepper over the weekend, several lawmakers in the anti-Koffa bloc described the Supreme Court’s action as interfering with the activities of another branch of government, which they claim is not in the confines of the authority of the Judiciary. They argue that Article 33 of the Constitution gives any majority sitting of lawmakers the authority to conduct session, be it with the Speaker and/or Deputy Speaker or not.
According to them, in the event the Speaker is conflicted, like he is now, the Deputy Speaker presides; however, if the Deputy Speaker fails to perform his function with the majority members, they have the right to elect a Speaker Pro-tempore, who will preside over the sitting and conduct business for and on behalf of the Liberian people.
They warned the Supreme Court to stay far from the activities of the House of Representatives, sending out a warning that they are with the authority to impeach any government official, including judges of the Supreme Court, and that if the Supreme Court fails to stay off their activities they may consider executing such an authority.
They expressed dismay over the accusation of bribery. They noted that Representative Luther Collins, who alleged that he received US$15,000, failed to provide proof to his claim, and wondered where he even acquired the money he showed to the public. They accused Representative Collins of sham, claiming that the Gbarpolu lawmaker showed $20 bills in his video as the money he was bribed with but presented $10 bills to the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) as his proof of bribery.
“How can Representative Collins show $20 bills to the public and present $10 bills to the LACC? Which one of these bills he actually received?” Maryland County’s district #2 Representative, Anthony Williams, wondered.
They described the bribery allegation as a means to tarnish their hard-earned reputations, but vowed to stand up for what they believe in until it reaches a logical conclusion.
Meanwhile, since the National Legislature resumed its regular session on October 15, there has been three official sittings, but the House of Representatives is yet to officially reconvene. If the House does not officially conduct business in the next two sittings, it is a violation of Article 40 of the Constitution. According to Article 40, “Neither House shall adjourn for more than five days without the consent of the other and both Houses shall always sit in the same city.”
Several angry Liberians have vowed to march on the Capitol, very soon, to protect the Constitution, restore democracy and move the country forward.
They say that the House of Representatives has adjourned session three times already, and if they cannot handle their differences but adjourn two more sessions, it would suggest they have also violated article 40 of the Constitution. “Those wanting to remove the Speaker cannot cripple our democracy. If they don’t have the 49 members needed to remove the Speaker, they should return to base. Simple! Using a ‘Political Method’ hoping the Speaker will resign isn’t going to work. Resignation is a choice, not a demand,” they observed.
They threatened to evoke Articles 1, 17 and 26 of the Constitution very soon, under the caption, “March to the Capitol; Protect the Constitution”, to demand the Supreme Court to halt all legislative activities at the House, in line with Article 26.