Monrovia — In a defiant and sharply worded response to the Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirming J. Fonati Koffa as the legitimate Speaker of the House of Representatives, Richard Nagbe Koon who purported as Speaker on Wednesday dismissed the Court’s judgment as a “flagrant violation” of the separation of powers doctrine and vowed that the House will not comply with the Court’s mandate.
In a statement released hours following the Court’s April 23 ruling, Koon insisted that Cllr. Koffa had been lawfully removed by a two-thirds majority of the full membership of the House in accordance with Article 49 of the Constitution and Rule 9(a) of the House’s internal rules. He accused the Court of attempting to impose Cllr. Koffa on the Legislature, characterizing the decision as an “audacious intrusion” into the internal affairs of the First Branch of Government.
“The Leadership of the House of Representatives, acting by and between me, the undersigned… rejects in the strongest term the Judgment of the Supreme Court,” Koon said in a formal statement issued under the official seal of the Speaker’s Office. He added that the Supreme Court “has today deviated from its own age-old standard not to delve into the internal affairs of the Legislature unless there is a clear and unequivocal violation of the Constitution.”
Supreme Court Reverses Koon’s Speakership
Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court issued a judgment in favor of Cllr. Koffa, invalidating Koon’s election as Speaker and nullifying all legislative acts carried out under his leadership. The ruling, which followed an amended Bill of Information filed by Koffa and his legal team, found that the so-called “majority bloc” had operated without constitutional legitimacy and in violation of the Court’s December 6, 2024 opinion.
Citing Articles 33 and 49 of the 1986 Constitution, the Court ruled that plenary sessions can only be presided over by the Speaker or, in his absence, the Deputy Speaker. Since Koffa was neither absent nor incapacitated, the Court concluded that any sessions or legislative actions conducted under Koon’s authority were unconstitutional and “without the appeal of the law.”
“This Court emphatically declares that it is within the power and authority of the Supreme Court of Liberia to say what the law is without fear or favor,” the ruling stated.
Koon Alleges Political Overreach
Koon, however, argued that the Legislature had acted within its rights when it removed Koffa for “corruption, conflict of interest and mismanagement”—violations allegedly prohibited under Article 90 of the Constitution and the House’s own Rules 44 and 45. He further claimed that Koffa had been afforded due process, citing the Supreme Court’s own 2007 precedent in the case Snowe v. House of Representatives.
“No member who signed the Resolution for the removal of Hon. Koffa ever filed a motion for reconsideration,” Koon noted, referencing Rule 17.4(q), and arguing that the decision to remove Koffa was therefore final and binding. He asserted that the Supreme Court has no authority to erase the legislative record.
Koon asserted that plenary “shall continue to conduct the business of the House of Representatives without any deference or regard to the Supreme Court’s Opinion and Judgment.”
Discussion about this post