Published: April 29, 2025
MONROVIA — The president of the Liberian National Bar Association (LNBA) has rebuked the country’s highest court, accusing the Supreme Court of effectively benefiting from an illegal national budget by endorsing a disputed legislative process.
At a news conference on Monday, LNBA President Cllr. Bornor Varmah said the April 23, 2025, ruling on the amended Bill of Information filed by embattled Speaker Jonathan Fonati Koffa violates both the doctrine of separation of powers and the Constitution of Liberia.
“The Supreme Court has indicted itself by benefiting from a process it declared unconstitutional,” Varmah said. “This is a serious offense under the circumstances.”
The Supreme Court’s opinion declared that any legislative actions excluding Speaker Koffa—recognized as the duly qualified Presiding Officer of the House of Representatives while present and available to preside—were unconstitutional.
“If the sittings of the Majority Bloc are illegal, then the 2025 National Budget is illegal,” said Varmah, referencing the legislative faction loyal to Majority Speaker Richard Nagbe Koon. “All persons who participated in the process and/or have benefited from it are guilty of having participated in an illegal process and facilitated the consummation of its illegality.”
Varmah emphasized that a Bill of Information should clarify a prior ruling—not deliver new ones. He accused the Court of “judicial overreach” by stepping into matters reserved by the Constitution for the Legislature, particularly the internal governance of the House.
“The Supreme Court’s Opinion and Judgment constitute judicial overreach into matters exclusively reserved to the House of Representatives,” Varmah said. “This violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, which is the cornerstone of a republican form of government.”
Varmah cited Liberia’s Political Question Doctrine, a legal principle that holds certain disputes—especially those involving internal legislative decisions—as nonjusticiable. He stressed that the Court’s intervention in determining the legitimacy of the Speaker violated this principle.
“The Political Question Doctrine is rooted in Articles 2 and 3 of the 1986 Constitution, which define the boundaries of judicial review and uphold checks and balances,” he said.
Varmah pointed to past Supreme Court jurisprudence that upheld judicial restraint in political matters, including impeachment, legislative affairs, and national security. “The Judiciary must not interfere in areas explicitly assigned to the Executive and Legislature unless there is a clear violation of rights or due process,” he said.
To resolve the current impasse in the House of Representatives, the LNBA proposed the establishment of an Independent Mediation Committee. The committee, Varmah suggested, should include former chief justices, the Interreligious Council, civil society leaders, and the LNBA leadership.
“The Court itself called for dialogue among rival factions. It is time we take that seriously and resolve this peacefully,” he said.
Despite his criticism, Varmah reaffirmed the LNBA’s commitment to the rule of law, constitutional democracy, and institutional harmony.
“As the legal community, we stand ready to provide guidance on these complex issues,” he said. “But we will not sit idly by as constitutional order is undermined under the guise of legal interpretation.”
Discussion about this post