The Liberian National Bar Association (LNBA) says it acknowledges the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Amended Bill of Information filed by Speaker J. Fonati Koffa; however, while the April 23, 2025 court’s opinion is noted as a testament to the court’s role in interpreting Constitutional matters, the Bar respectfully disagrees with several key elements of the ruling.
The LNBA observed that while it upholds the authority of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of Constitutional and legal questions, it is constrained to express its disagreement with the court’s interpretation and its practical implications on the doctrine of separation of powers.
The LNBA affirmed that a Bill of Information, as a procedural tool, is designed to clarify the implementation of a judgment or bring to the court’s attention to issues affecting its mandate; it is not, and should not become, a substitute mechanism for settling inherently political questions—particularly those relating to the internal organization, leadership, or operational independence of the Legislature.
In a press statement issued Tuesday, April 29, 2025, the LNBA said, “The ongoing conflict within the House of Representatives is a matter that, though it may involve constitutional questions, is primarily political in nature. It requires a political resolution through institutional dialogue, consensus-building, and adherence to democratic norms. While the Court may offer interpretative guidance on legal issues, the enforcement and implementation of its opinions in such matters depend heavily on political goodwill and respect for Constitutional boundaries.”
The LNBA expressed further concerns that repeated reliance on the Judiciary to resolve legislative disputes may erode public confidence in the independence of both branches of government and may set a troubling precedent where political actors abdicate their responsibility to resolve internal conflicts.
“Under Liberian jurisprudence and practice, a Bill of Information is intended to clarify or enforce a judgment where there is confusion or obstruction. While the Court’s decision to allow the Bill of Information was justified and procedurally correct given the confusion surrounding the meaning and application of its prior ruling of December 6, 2024, the LNBA observes that the Supreme Court expanded the function of the Bill of Information by re-asserting and elaborating its prior ruling, effectively issuing a new substantive decision rather than simply clarifying it. This expansion risks inflating the Bill of Information into a de facto remedial tool, inviting future parties to misuse it for re-litigation rather than clarification,” the legal body indicated.
The LNBA asserted that on December 6, 2024 the Supreme Court ruled by indicating the following: “Wherefore and in view of the foregoing, any sitting or action by members of the Legislature not in conformity with the intent of Article 33 and 49 of the Constitution are ultra vires. Hence, members of the House of Representatives are to conduct themselves accordingly. The clerk of this court is hereby ordered to inform the parties, and it is hereby so ordered.”
The Bar argued that the December 6, 2024 ruling of the Supreme Court did not have any clear mandate to which the Bill of Information could lie; however, it agreed with the Supreme Court on the clear purpose of clarification of the December 6, 2024 ruling.
The Bar said it believes, therefore, that the Supreme Court erred by allowing informants in the proceeding to use the office of the Bill of Information to have the Supreme Court issued a second Opinion and Judgement in the same Constitutionality case, which is very different from the first Opinion in the same case.
According to the LNBA, in its April 23, 2025 Opinion and Judgment, the Supreme Court said, “… any sittings or actions of the ‘Majority Bloc’ (respondents) to the exclusion of Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, the duly qualified Presiding Officer of the House of Representatives, while he is present and available to preside, is un-Constitutional and without the pale of the law.”
The LNBA stated emphatically that if the sittings of the Majority Bloc are illegal, obviously then the 2025 National Budget is illegal and all persons who participated in the process and/or have benefitted from the process are guilty of having participated in an illegal process and facilitated the consummation of its illegality. “The LNBA believes that the Supreme Court has indicted itself of committing a very serious offense under the circumstance. That is why it is important that the Supreme Court quickly reconsiders its Opinion and Judgment and expunge itself from this embarrassment. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s Opinion and Judgment constitute judicial overreach into matters exclusively reserved by the Constitution to the House of Representatives; and this violates the Separation of Powers doctrine—the cornerstone of a Republican form of government,” the LNBA press statement, read and signed by its National President, Cllr. Bornor M. Varmah, noted.
“The LNBA shall not condone legislative overreach in matters reserved by the 1986 Constitution to the Judiciary. Similarly, the LNBA shall not idly observe judicial overreach in matters reserved by the Constitution exclusively for the Legislature – matters such as determining who shall be the House of Representatives’ Speaker and how the Speaker may be removed from office for cause. This is simply a violation of the Political Question Doctrine,” the statement emphasized.
The LNBA further noted that, under Liberian law, the Political Question Doctrine is a principle rooted in Constitutional interpretation that holds certain issues that are more appropriately addressed by the political branches of government (i.e., the Executive and Legislature) rather than the Judiciary. This doctrine is derived from the doctrine of separation of powers, which is enshrined in Articles 2 and 3 of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia.
“That is why the LNBA notes the opinion of the Supreme Court that Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa remains the Legitimate Speaker of the House of Representatives on ground that his removal was un-Constitutional consistent with Article 49 of the 1986 Constitution, which states, ‘The House of Representatives shall elect once every six years a Speaker who shall be the presiding officer of that body, a Deputy Speaker, and such other officers as shall ensure the proper functioning of the House. The Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and other officers so elected may be removed from office for cause by resolution of a two-thirds majority of the members of the House.’
“The LNBA therefore calls on the Supreme Court not to allow this dangerous precedent, which will erode confidence in the governance of Liberia, to remain standing. Finally, the LNBA notes that should the Supreme Court fail to recall and reverse itself, thereby making the 2025 budget illegal, disbursements of salaries and payments made by the Executive for goods and services will be illegal and this will disrupt government operations and undermine the credibility of the State. Some might liken this to criminal subversion of the government. The LNBA, as a critical institution responsible for the guidance of the state, calls on the Supreme Court to quickly move to avoid any calamity in Liberia, the impact of which will affect the stability of the country. This call is against the background of preserving public policy interest,” the LNBA statement added.
The LNBA then urged all stakeholders, including the Legislature and the Executive, to engage in constructive dialogue to address these concerns. The LNBA reiterated its commitment to fostering a culture of respect for the rule of law while advocating for interpretations that promote institutional harmony and democratic progress.
“As the legal community, we stand ready to provide guidance and support in navigating these complex Constitutional issues. The LNBA reaffirms its dedication to upholding justice, protecting Constitutional rights, and ensuring the stability of Liberia’s democratic institutions,” the LNBA indicated.
Meanwhile, the LNBA has recommended the establishment of an Independent Mediation Committee to resolve the impasse in the House of Representatives. According to the LNBA, the committee should comprise of eminent Liberians; example, former chief justices, the LNBA leadership, Interreligious council, and civil society actors in line with the Supreme Court’s opinion where it states that the opinion, with a mandate to facilitate dialogue among rival factions and recommend a unified leadership framework for peaceful resolutions.