Supreme Court Questions Legality of Richard Koon’s Election as Speaker

MONROVIA – The Supreme Court of Liberia has raised doubts about the constitutionality of Representative Richard Koon’s recent election as Speaker, following intense legal arguments presented on November 27, 2024. The full Bench’s pointed questioning of the majority bloc’s legal team, led by Cllr. H. Varney Sherman, suggests the court may declare the election unconstitutional.

Justice Yusif D. Kaba pressed Cllr. Sherman on whether it was procedurally correct for the majority bloc to convene their own session while Speaker J. Fonati Koffa was still present. He further questioned the legality of meetings held in Koffa’s absence, asking, “Were these meetings conducted within the confines of the law?”

Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh sought clarity on the removal process for Speaker Koffa, asking, “How was the Speaker removed, and what procedure was used?” Justice Kaba also raised the critical question: “Can there be a quorum without the Speaker presiding?”

Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson, representing Speaker Koffa, argued that the actions of the majority bloc violated constitutional provisions, including Articles 33, 49, and 20(a) of the Liberian Constitution. He cited Article 2 and Article 66 as the basis for the court’s jurisdiction over the matter, emphasizing that the doctrine of separation of powers is not a shield for unconstitutional actions.

Cllr. Johnson contended that the majority bloc acted outside the bounds of due process, as Speaker Koffa was not afforded a formal hearing, access to evidence, or the opportunity to confront witnesses. “We cannot have two Speakers,” Johnson told the justices, urging them to declare the majority bloc’s actions unconstitutional and illegal.

Johnson further argued that the suspension of lawmakers supporting Koffa was similarly unconstitutional, and he called for the court to set a precedent to prevent future violations. He referenced the Edwin Snowe removal case as a relevant precedent for the court’s deliberations.

Cllr. H. Varney Sherman, representing the majority bloc, defended their actions, asserting that the election of Representative Koon was conducted lawfully. He cited incidents in which members of the House of Representatives, attempting to present a vote of no confidence against Speaker Koffa, were allegedly blocked by Representative Marvin Cole and others from entering the chambers.

Sherman argued that the majority bloc was left with no choice but to hold their session in the joint chambers, emphasizing that such actions were neither illegal nor unconstitutional. He maintained that the group followed due process, filing a complaint against Speaker Koffa, forming a committee to investigate, and voting on the committee’s findings in plenary.

Sherman urged the Supreme Court to respect the separation of powers and allow lawmakers to resolve their internal disputes. “The legislative matter is internal and should be handled by the lawmakers themselves,” he told the court.

The Ministry of Justice, represented by Solicitor General Cllr. Augustine Fayiah and Assistant Minister for Litigation Cllr. Jerry Garlawolu, took a neutral stance. They argued that the matter before the court concerns the actions of individual lawmakers rather than the Constitution itself.

The Ministry stated that it could not take sides or advise either the Judiciary or Legislature and requested to be removed from the proceedings to avoid becoming entangled in legislative matters.

The Supreme Court has reserved its ruling, leaving the fate of Speaker Koffa and the legality of Representative Koon’s election uncertain.