By Worlea – Saywah Dunah (former Representative, Nimba County Electoral District #9) saywahd@yahoo.com
The militant questioning style of the Chief Justice made many newspapers, professional talk show callers, social media publicists who still refer to the lawmaker Koffa as the Speaker of the Liberian legislature hyper-enthused to declare after the hearing that the Plenary and Speaker Koon were doomed. Sadly, their ignorant self-intoxication is tenable but the facts and the law makes any decision other than to affirm the separation of powers doctrine, the non-justiciable political question and constitutional avoidance impossible.
Koon remains the speaker: the judiciary lacks the power to undo him; the Plenary elected him. And that plenary has since continued to execute the functions of the legislature as constitutional and legitimate. I believe no hypersonic publicity and pseudo-public anger can thwart the patented inevitability of Article 3 and the long opinions asserting the separation of powers in our government.
The Facts, They Are Irrefutable, We All Know Oh….
It is now common knowledge that the constitution requires a simple majority of either houses to transact the business of the Liberian people; yet the aforementioned partisan media totally ludicrous assertion is that without the speaker the lower house is incapacitated.
But on a day in October 2024 while former speaker Koffa was abroad the plenary (always means the simple majority of members) of the House of Representatives were prevented by physical violence sandwiched with verbal insults and the locking of the public legislative spaces built with public monies by some of their colleagues.
Plenary therefore reverted to the sacred William R. Tolbert, Jr Hall -which now lies in arsonous ruins- and proceeded lawfully to work. As per the constitution and the rules plenary is the highest decision-making body; hence that plenary was legal, constitutional and competent to make laws for Liberia before the speaker’s return.
Koffa rightly condemned the violence; the rules and the constitution thereby imposed on him to report to duty at plenary as that plenary had decided to avoid further violence by working in another chamber. His condemnation clearly shows that the perpetrators’ actions were of their own mischief then it became administratively binding on him to go to that plenary; there he should have ordered a crisis closed-door session to inquire about the violence and set a committee to investigate the violence which he had condemned like all of us.
Sadly, Fonati fluffed his line; he failed to assume his official duties; instead took a cowardly retreat from plenary. But the late Hans Barchue of Bassa was of sterner stuff; he strode into plenary and the gavel was yielded in 2016- it was his rights- and presided during the Speaker Tyler removal. Koffa was under obligation to march into the William R. Tolbert Hall and preside; his failure to do so and subsequent failure to establish a new plenary elsewhere gravely incapacitated his political standings.
As we all know now, he was complained; surprisedly he refused the opportunity to confront his accusers before the committee or to denounce and reject the committee authority as required by law. He was found guilty, removed as per the rules and a new speaker elected; but just a written response denouncing the committee’s authority would have yielded a different outcome.
Politically just one of the counts of the complaint would have a speaker to resign; the charge that the former speaker unilaterally selected the delegates from the lower house to the ECOWAS Parliament. Now Liberia is part of the regional bloc, ECOWAS, and our legislature elects six of its members every four years to represent us at the regional parliament.
Instead of the conduct of a free competitive elections for the allotted four seats of the Liberian lower house the former speaker unilaterally selected and forwarded four names. Elections are required which all speakers from 2006 before him had conducted.
Thus, the fact established that plenary was constitutional; that the speaker abandoned plenary to his peril, that the speaker violated ECOWAS Rules and the Rules of the House of Representatives in the unilateral selection of delegates; and that the speaker refused to appear before a body constituted by plenary.
And all of these cumulated into his removal. The Law Facts are stubborn; hence courts everywhere decide a case based on its unique set of facts using the governing laws. The constitution firstly established co-equal branches and grant to the legislature the powers to regulate itself. The constitution further grants to the legislature the power of impeachment of officials of the executive and the judiciary.
Again the constitution assigns to the political house the impeachment of officials and matters governing the election and removal of legislative political leadership. It grants to the judiciary to adjudicate these matters which falls into civil or criminal baskets; then the legislature set up statutes for both baskets.
And so we see that the matter of speaker removal is suis generis a political question issue. It is neither civil nor criminal hence it is not for the judiciary. The constitution wisely assigns it to the political house because its resolution is political. Isnt it glaring that Article 38 only refers to the requirement for plenary as simple majority to do the work and did not mention a speaker because it is a political house?
So, the political house impeached President Clinton in the United States for having oral sex in the white house while he worked with a consenting adult. He did not break any American laws. The US Congress acted politically within its right though he survived removal at the senate; but the point is clear – did he run to the US Supreme Court? He knew better they wont look at it, impeachment looms!
To Conclude, Respect For the Constitution – Separation of Powers
Non-Justiciability, the lack of capacity of a court to enforce its judgment in a political matter remains the ancient principle underpinnings the political question doctrine. Another component is constitutional avoidance which says one must not attempt to use the constitution to kill the constitution.
The Speaker Snowe case vividly points out the unenforceability of any judicial edict on the legislature when it is acting under its constitutional powers especially and particularly when the legislature has the competence and confidence to insist that it will not accept and condone any encroachment or usurpation of its textually explicit constitutional powers as the plenary of the 52nd legislature did.
The fact that the Supreme Court can never serve a writ of prohibition on any sitting of the plenary of legislature exposes the issue because if the petitioner believes that the Supreme Court has such power over the legislature he would have prayed for it.
The plenary of the lower house has impeachment powers though; and this case is simply the exercise of its powers wherein the matter is settled; the judiciary, like the Liberians say, has no fish to fry in it. Oh the Ghanian Speaker said it just days ago. The only opinion I see coming is a slam-dunk: this is a political matter that the legislature has settled and petitioner must return to plenary.
