Published: April 13, 2026
MONROVIA — When this paper reached out to members of the House of Representatives over the weekend for their reaction to the push to expel Montserrado County District 10 Representative Yekeh Kolubahh, the response was telling in its uniformity. They declined to comment. All of them.
Not off the record. Not on background. Not even with the standard legislative hedge of “I need more time to review the matter.” Just silence — clean, deliberate, and in its own way, loudly instructive.
A Chamber Divided, Mostly Quietly
Rep. Sumo Mulbah of Montserrado County District 3 submitted a petition accusing Kolubahh of gross breach of duty, misconduct in office, and violation of his oath — charges rooted in remarks Kolubahh allegedly made on Spoon TV, after returning from Ghana, in which he suggested the territory at the center of the Liberia-Guinea border dispute “belongs to Guinea.” The House forwarded the matter to its Committee on Rules, Order and Administration on April 9, with a report expected within 10 days. Legislative sources say at least 36 members have signed onto the effort.
Only a handful of lawmakers have spoken publicly. Rep. Musa Hassan Bility of Nimba County District 7 of the Citizens Movement for Change called the move “a calculated political effort” and warned that the Legislature was entering “a dangerous phase of our democratic governance.” Rep. J. Marvin Cole urged caution, insisting Kolubahh must be heard and that colleagues should focus on the actual border security problem rather than rushing to punish a colleague.
The vast majority of the 73-member House, including opposition members, has remained silent. That silence, especially from lawmakers known for holding the ruling establishment accountable, is the most important political development in this saga that nobody is discussing.
The Opposition’s Curious Quiet
Kolubah, whatever one thinks of his remarks about the Guinea border, has historically occupied a lane that the opposition depends on. He has always been the loud, fearless critic who says what others calculate too carefully to say. His willingness to challenge successive administrations, including the current one, which he helped bring to power, has at various points served the opposition’s broader narrative.
Yet when the moment came to stand beside him, or at minimum to publicly question the constitutional integrity of a process that, as the House’s own press office confirmed, cannot result in expulsion without a two-thirds plenary majority of 49 votes, opposition voices were largely absent from the public record.
The question that follows is uncomfortable but unavoidable: Is the opposition’s silence a form of abandonment? Are lawmakers who once positioned themselves as defenders of dissent now calculating that Kolubah’s political liabilities outweigh the cost of his removal? Or, and this is the more troubling possibility, are some of them quietly supportive of a process they lack the political courage to publicly endorse?
None of the lawmakers this paper contacted answered that question. They did not answer any question at all.
The Signature Fee Rumors
Sources familiar with Capitol Hill discussions say a resolution is being taken to lawmakers, accompanied by a handful of signatures, and, according to the rumor, a fee of US$35,000 for those signatures, intended to formalize and accelerate the process toward Kolubah’s ouster.
If the House proceeds against Kolubah with anything less than a transparent, documented, and procedurally sound process, the legitimacy of the outcome, whatever it is, will be contested long after the vote is taken.
What the Public Is Saying
Outside the Legislature, public opinion is fractured along lines that track more closely with long-standing views of Kolubah as a political figure than with legal analysis.
On social media, some see the expulsion push as straightforward accountability. “You can’t represent a nation and sabotage it at the same time,” one commenter wrote. Others frame it as the logical consequence of a lawmaker whose combative style finally caught up with him. “We will all be happy when he is expelled,” wrote another, arguing that a precedent must be set before others follow the same path.
But others are more skeptical of the process itself. “Just another smokescreen,” one commenter wrote. “Ulterior motives clouded by politics have always been the real reason behind expulsion or impeachment in the lower house. This house is infamous for that.” Another invoked a Liberian proverb: “Any rope that hang Monkey can also hang Bamboo” — a reminder to those wielding the process today that the same instrument can be turned against them tomorrow.
One commenter who said he had long admired Kolubah for holding leadership accountable drew a distinction that cuts to the heart of the matter: “His statement during the Guinea-Liberia land dispute was deeply disappointing and unpatriotic. That particular episode transcended political affiliations. It was a moment that demanded unity and unwavering commitment to defending Liberia’s territorial integrity.” Another observer was blunter: “There is a limit to freedom of speech, especially when it has to do with Liberia’s sovereignty.”
The Constitutional Stakes
Expulsion requires two-thirds of the full House, 49 of 73 votes. Rule 9 of the House’s Standing Rules leaves the definition of expellable offenses to plenary discretion, but that discretion is bounded by the requirement of “sufficient grounds” and the due process guarantees embedded in the Constitution. Kolubah is entitled to be heard. The committee is obligated to conduct genuine hearings, not produce a predetermined conclusion.
If 36 signatures have already been gathered before the committee has held a single hearing, before a single witness has been called, and before the accused has formally responded, that sequencing raises legitimate questions about whether the outcome of this investigation is being decided before the investigation begins.
Discussion about this post