The Supreme Court of Liberia, through Associate Justice, His Honor Judge Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, has come in defense of their action to boycott the State-of-the-Nation Address, observing that the decision was the rightness of the court.
Judge Gbeisay’s statement comes amidst impeachment threat against the Chief Justice, Sie-A-Nyene Yuoh, from a prominent Liberian citizen and resident of the United States of America, Dr. Prince Yeakehson, who has petitioned the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice for alleged gross breach of duty, political interference beyond judicial authority and abuse of judicial power.
The petitioner, Dr. Yeakehson, claimed that the Chief Justice’s refusal to attend the President’s Constitutional address was not a legal necessity but a politically motivated act that compromised judicial neutrality, and such conduct amounts to gross breach of duty and misconduct, warranting her removal from office through impeachment.
However, Judge Gbeisay observed that the decision was a holistic one from all the judges of the Supreme Court, and not of Chief Justice Yuoh alone, and that it was their formal way of trying to avoid getting involved in potential conflict.
In a trending audio recording, Judge Gbeisay is heard saying, “You know, sometime ago, when we didn’t turnout for the President’s address, it became more of a news than the address itself. That was the formal way of trying to avoid getting involved in potential conflict. Remember, the conflict going on at the House…when they appeared before us, we made a decision, and the effect of that decision was that, ‘Look, our laws require that the House should have a quorum, and that quorum should be presided over by a Speaker.’”
He continued, “‘Now that you, the majority bloc, have a quorum, we don’t see a Speaker there; so whatever you do is ultra vires. In other words, it is illegal. We turned to the minority bloc, and said the law says until you can get a quorum you must adjourn from day to day and compel the other people to join. But there is no statute that tells us how you will compel the other people to join; so you, too, will remain there until you get a quorum. Whatever you do is ultra vires.’
“So on the both sides, the Supreme Court was clearly saying, ‘Go and solve your problem…We don’t have laws to that effect. We have done our own. We are not in control of politics,’” he observed.
According to him, if for some reason the Senate and the President decided to recognize the “majority bloc” and they receive an invitation from a “Speaker” (probably whom they do not recognize), it was best to stay away, or it would mean recognizing one of the blocs.
“If for some reason the Senate decides to recognize the ‘majority bloc’, the President recognizes ‘majority bloc’ and government function is going on, then we receive an invitation from a Speaker, our concern is our presence there means we have recognized one side of the blocs. So the best thing to do was to remain who we are. That was the rightness of the court,” Judge Gbeisay further observed.
