MONROVIA – Judge George W. Smith of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Civil Law Court has dismissed the application filed by embattled Speaker of the House of Representatives J. Fonati Koffa, citing constitutional and jurisdictional limitations of the matter before the court.
In a ruling delivered on Monday, January 27, 2025, Judge Smith denied the Speaker’s motion for declaratory judgment and imposed costs against him and his associates. Simultaneously, the court granted a motion to dismiss the petition for declaratory judgment filed by Representative Richard Nagbe Koon, a member of the House’s majority bloc.
Judge Smith questioned whether issuing a declaratory judgment in the matter would resolve the controversy at hand. Concluding that it would not, he cited Section 43.5 of the Civil Procedure Law, which requires a declaratory judgment to terminate the controversy giving rise to it.
The Judge addressed three central issues in his ruling:
First Issue: Procedural Validity of the Writ of Summons
Judge Smith examined whether the writ of summons for the petition for declaratory judgment had been issued under a judge’s order. He noted that the case file contained both written directions and a judge’s order for the issuance of the writ. Even if the writ had been issued solely based on written directions, the Judge ruled this procedural technicality was insufficient to justify dismissing the petition, as proper service and returns had been made.
Second Issue: Jurisdiction in Light of Supreme Court Opinion
The court evaluated whether it had jurisdiction over the petition for declaratory judgment in light of a prior Supreme Court opinion titled, “The Constitutionality of Certain Actions Taken by Some Members of the House of Representatives of the 55th Legislature.” Judge Smith emphasized that the power to issue a declaratory judgment is discretionary and noted that the Supreme Court had already addressed the substantive issues raised. He cited Section 11.2(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Law, affirming that a subordinate court cannot review or revisit Supreme Court decisions without violating the principle of judicial hierarchy.
Third Issue: Authority to Review Legislative Actions
Judge Smith ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction to review or pass judgment on the constitutionality and legality of legislative actions taken by Members of the House of Representatives. He underscored that this power is exclusively vested in the Supreme Court, referencing past Supreme Court rulings, including Republic v. Leadership of the Liberia National Bar Association (2001).
Judge Smith concluded that any attempt by a court of concurrent jurisdiction to review a Supreme Court decision would be legally impermissible and could subject the presiding judge to contempt. He reaffirmed that only the Supreme Court has the authority to adjudicate the constitutionality and legality of legislative proceedings.
Discussion about this post