Published: May 21, 2026
MONROVIA – The Supreme Court of Liberia has dismissed contempt proceedings against House Speaker Richard Nagbe Koon and members of the House of Representatives, ruling that the case collapsed on a fundamental procedural failure: the respondents were never properly served with the court’s own writ of prohibition and accompanying stay order.
In an opinion signed by Chambers Justice Yussif D. Kaba on May 20, the high court held that serving court documents on a receptionist and a computer operator assigned to the offices of the Speaker and Chief Clerk did not constitute lawful service on the House of Representatives and therefore rendered the entire contempt action legally defective.
The ruling marks a significant moment in the simmering tensions between the Judiciary and the Legislature over compliance with judicial orders and constitutional authority.
Under Rule 26.5 of the House of Representatives’ internal rules, the Sergeant-at-Arms is the sole officer authorized to receive judicial precepts and official court instruments on behalf of the institution. Records before the court showed that the Marshal bypassed that requirement entirely, leaving documents with staff members who had no authority to accept legal process on the Legislature’s behalf.
“Service upon the Office of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, and for that matter, any other members of the House, absent service upon the Sergeant-at-Arms, does not constitute proper service consistent with Rule 26.5,” the opinion stated.
The ruling turned on a well-established principle in contempt law. Because contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, they require strict adherence to procedural safeguards before sanctions can be imposed. The court held that contempt cannot be sustained without clear and convincing evidence that the respondent had actual or constructive notice of the order allegedly violated. Since the House was never lawfully served, no such notice existed and the proceedings could not stand.
“Before a party may be adjudicated in contempt, it must first be shown that the party had actual or constructive notice of the order allegedly violated,” the court said.
Despite dismissing the bill of information, the Supreme Court took care to reaffirm its constitutional authority to review legislative action in appropriate cases, while cautioning that such authority must always be exercised in conformity with due process and established procedures governing service of process. The court also reminded all persons and institutions that judicial orders carry binding legal force.
“While this Court reaffirms its constitutional authority to exercise judicial review over acts of the Legislature in appropriate cases, such authority must nevertheless be exercised in a manner consistent with due process,” the opinion stated.
The bill of information was formally denied and dismissed. The Clerk of the Supreme Court was ordered to communicate the ruling to all parties.
Counsellors Kabine M. Ja’neh, Jonathan Massaquoi and Momodu G. Kandaikai appeared for the informant. Counsellors Boye Layfeyee and Albert Sims represented the respondents.
Discussion about this post