MONROVIA — The Supreme Court of Liberia has officially docketed a petition for re-argument filed by the Majority Bloc of the House of Representatives, challenging the Court’s earlier ruling that recognized Rep. Jonathan Fonati Koffa as the legitimate Speaker.
As a result, the official business of the House remains on hold, pending the outcome of the legal challenge. All justices of the Supreme Court have received copies of the petition, filed by Rep. Richard Nagbe Koon on April 25.
According to Rule 9, Part 1 of the Supreme Court’s Revised Rules of Court, a re-argument may be allowed once for good cause, particularly where a substantial mistake was made by inadvertently overlooking facts or points of law. Part 2 stipulates that any such petition must be filed within three days of the Court’s opinion, unless special permission is granted by the full bench. Under Part 3, such a petition must clearly outline the legal basis and can only be heard if a concurring justice orders it. If granted, per Part 4, the case shall be re-docketed for reconsideration of the allegedly overlooked legal or factual matters.
The Majority Bloc, led by Rep. Koon, submitted a 29-count petition seeking to reopen the amended Bill of Information case in which the Court had ruled their actions unconstitutional and upheld Koffa as the presiding officer of the House.
In the petition, the Bloc contends that the Court failed to consider critical facts and committed legal errors. They argue that if those facts and legal standards had been considered, the judgment—stating any action or sitting of the Majority Bloc excluding Speaker Koffa was unconstitutional—would not have been rendered.
They also allege that the Court ignored events from August 2024, when Rep. Marvin Cole and others allegedly locked the official chambers of the House and used “thugs” to prevent the Majority Bloc from entering. This forced them to meet in the Joint Chambers to deliberate on a complaint against Koffa involving alleged corruption, conflict of interest, and mismanagement—violations of Article 90 of the Constitution and the House’s own rules.
The petitioners further recalled that the Supreme Court’s Chamber Justice had earlier declined to prohibit them from meeting in the Joint Chambers because the power to remove a Speaker lies with the House through a two-thirds resolution.
Represented by Cllr. H. Varney Sherman and Cllr. Albert Sims, the Bloc argues that the Court overlooked the fact that Speaker Koffa failed to secure a quorum, and as such, was unable to convene official sessions. They say most members had resolved not to sit under his gavel until he was cleared of the allegations.
They also challenge the Court’s assertion that “parallel meetings” had taken place, pointing out that no such meetings were convened by Speaker Koffa due to the lack of quorum.
According to the petition, Deputy Speaker Thomas Fallah chaired the first post-controversy session in Koffa’s absence, during which the complaint against the Speaker was officially read and an investigation was ordered—thereby initiating official business.
Petitioners further argue that the Supreme Court erred in its suggestion that only one specific room or chamber could host House sessions. They note that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the House frequently convened in the Joint Chambers for spacing purposes. Therefore, they assert, wherever a quorum meets in Monrovia constitutes a legal session of the House.
They added that the Court was wrong to suggest that any meeting not presided over by Koffa—even when the Deputy Speaker was available—was null and void. They reiterated that plenary authority resides with the House membership, not its Speaker.
The petition asks the Supreme Court to promptly re-docket and re-hear the amended Bill of Information proceeding, recall and overturn its April 23 opinion, and rule in favor of the Majority Bloc, including costs against the respondents.
Discussion about this post