Monrovia – Attorney General N. Oswald Tweh has backed the Majority Bloc in the House of Representatives, affirming the legality of their legislative sessions and actions, including work on the Draft 2025 National Budget, in line with the Supreme Court’s December 6 ruling.
The judgment, which addressed quorum requirements under Article 33 and presiding authority under Article 49, upheld the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the legislative dispute but stopped short of declaring the Majority Bloc’s actions unconstitutional.
“My reading of the Court’s opinion is that the majority bloc fulfilled the constitutional prerequisites for conducting legislative business,” Tweh stated. “The Constitution mandates that a quorum be present and a presiding officer chair the session. In the absence of Speaker Koffa, the Deputy Speaker legally assumed this role.”
According to Tweh, the Court validated the legality of the Majority Bloc’s sessions, given their adherence to constitutional and procedural requirements despite the absence of Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, who faced accusations of corruption and conflict of interest.
Legislative Crisis and Supreme Court Involvement
The dispute arose when the Majority Bloc in the House of Representatives boycotted sessions presided over by Speaker Koffa, citing unresolved allegations of corruption against him. With the Speaker unable to secure a quorum for sessions, the Majority Bloc has been convening under the Deputy Speaker’s leadership and subsequently electing Richard Koon as Speaker.
The Speaker and a minority of representatives challenged these actions before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Majority Bloc’s sessions violated Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution. The petitioners sought to invalidate the bloc’s decisions, including their work on the 2025 Draft National Budget and the restructuring of statutory committees.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court acknowledged its jurisdiction over the matter but clarified that its role was limited to interpreting constitutional provisions rather than adjudicating all procedural disputes within the legislature. The Court outlined the requirements for a valid legislative session, emphasizing the need for a quorum, a presiding officer – the Speaker, and adherence to established protocols.
Legal Justification for Majority Bloc’s Actions
Attorney General Tweh, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision, concluded that the Majority Bloc’s sessions met the constitutional criteria for legislative proceedings. He noted that the Deputy Speaker’s assumption of the presiding role was consistent with Article 49, which designates the Deputy Speaker as the presiding officer in the Speaker’s absence. Additionally, the sessions adhered to procedural requirements, including the Sergeant-at-Arms’ announcement and the Chaplain’s invocation.
“The framers of the Constitution could not have envisioned a scenario where legislative business is indefinitely paralyzed due to a Speaker’s absence or refusal to preside,” Tweh argued. “The Majority Bloc acted within the law to fulfill their legislative responsibilities to the Liberian people.”
Tweh further opined that the Court’s silence on specific prayers by the petitioners, such as the suspension of three minority members, implied a rejection of those claims. “The Supreme Court only addressed issues germane to the determination of the case, leaving the Majority Bloc’s actions intact,” he stated.
Discussion about this post