Monrovia — Representative Richard N. Koon and his embattled “majority bloc” have accused the nation’s highest judicial body of financial malfeasance and warned that its April 23 ruling on the House impasse could soon plunge the country into chaos.
In a Petition for Re-Argument filed Friday, Koon and his allies charge that the Court not only erred in stripping them of legislative authority but also knowingly benefited from the very budget they have now declared illegal — a move the petitioners say demands sanctions against the Justices themselves.
“Your Honors are in turn guilty of malfeasance for receiving and disbursing Liberian Government funds… Your Honors ought to and should be held liable and appropriate sanctions imposed for such serious misconduct,” the petition notes.
The accusations, laid out in a blistering 27-count petition, allege that the Court’s April 23 ruling declaring Koon’s speakership and legislative actions unconstitutional constitutes judicial overreach so egregious that it risks collapsing the nation’s democratic order and igniting widespread social unrest.
“The judicial over-reaching and blatant unconstitutional interference in the internal affairs and administration of the House of Representatives… could probably, within a few days, plunge the Republic of Liberia and the governance of the Republic into chaos,” the document states. “[It could] soon possibly destroy the full faith and credit of the Republic of Liberia and foster social and political unrest.”
The filing comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s April 23, 2025, ruling, which reaffirmed Speaker J. Fonati Koffa as the legitimate head of the House of Representatives. The Court’s judgment followed months of political chaos during which Koon’s “majority bloc” attempted to remove Koffa from the speakership and install Koon in his place.
In its decision, the Court ruled that all legislative actions undertaken by Koon and his bloc were unconstitutional, citing Articles 33 and 49 of the 1986 Constitution. The Court found that plenary sessions must be presided over by the Speaker or, in the Speaker’s absence, the Deputy Speaker — and that Speaker Koffa had never relinquished his role or authority.
Among the acts declared null and void was the passage of the 2025 national budget, an act the Court described as “recklessly endangering the full faith and credit of the government.”
Koon Bloc’s Defiance
Undeterred by the ruling, Koon immediately rejected the Court’s decision, characterizing it as “an audacious intrusion into the internal affairs of the First Branch of Government.” In a sharply worded statement, Koon vowed that the House of Representatives would continue to function without “any deference or regard” to the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Now, through their Petition for Re-Argument, Koon and his allies are seeking not only to overturn the ruling but also to cast the Court itself as complicit in the very constitutional violations it purported to remedy.
“Your Honors have since been enjoying the benefits of the acts and conduct of Informants,” the petition reads, referring to budget allocations received by the Judiciary. “[Yet you] have now declared as having convened unconstitutionally.”
“Your Honors are in turn guilty of malfeasance for receiving and disbursing Liberian Government funds… Your Honors ought to and should be held liable and appropriate sanctions imposed for such serious misconduct,” the petition notes.
Excerpt, Majority bloc Petition for Reargument
President Boakai Calls for Calm
In a nationally broadcast address on last Thursday, President Boakai declared that his administration would prioritize the functionality of government above the ongoing leadership dispute engulfing the Legislature. “Fellow Liberians, our Constitution and the Supreme Court have defined what constitutes a quorum for the conduct of business in the Legislature. We intend to vigorously uphold this vital principle of our constitutional democracy,” the President stated. “We will continue to work with the quorum that will ensure the full functioning of our government.”
Boakai emphasized the need for consultations and reaffirmed his commitment to uphold the principles of democracy and constitutional governance. He condemned any acts of vandalism against national institutions, referencing the recent torching of the Capitol Building and other reported acts of sabotage.
“We are a country governed by laws, not by mobs or self-serving ambition,” President Boakai said. “Those who undermine peace, violate the law, or seek to disrupt national harmony will face the full force of the law and justice.”
Speaker Koffa’s Olive Branch
In contrast to the defiant posture of Koon and his bloc, Speaker Koffa has adopted a conciliatory tone. In a speech following the Court’s ruling, Koffa called for reconciliation and proposed the formation of a joint committee to heal divisions within the House.
“Come, let us reason together,” Koffa urged. “Let us show this nation how democracies are built.”
Koffa’s appeals have yet to yield concrete results, however, as Koon’s bloc remains steadfast in its rejection of the Supreme Court’s authority.
Experts opinion
The Supreme Court’s procedural rules allow for a petition for re-argument to be filed under limited circumstances — namely, when a palpable substantial mistake of fact or law is shown. Legal analysts say the bar for such petitions is intentionally high, and few are ever granted.
According to expert commentary, the petitioner must demonstrate that the Court overlooked a crucial fact or legal principle that, if properly considered, would have changed the outcome of the case. Mere dissatisfaction with the judgment is not enough.
In practice, re-arguments are granted sparingly. Cases like West African Trading Corp. v. Alrine (1976) and Grass Roots Cinema Ltd. v. Citibank (1985) demonstrate the Court’s reluctance to revisit settled decisions absent clear error.
Discussion about this post