Monrovia — The Supreme Court of Liberia has ruled invalidating the election of Representative Richard Koon as Speaker of the House of Representatives and declaring the legislative actions undertaken by his so-called “majority bloc” unconstitutional, unauthorized, and without legal effect.
The decision, handed down Wednesday, comes as a definitive response to an amended Bill of Information filed by House Speaker J. Fonati Koffa and his allies. The filing alleged that Koon and members of the “self-styled majority bloc” flagrantly violated the Court’s December 6, 2024, opinion and final judgment on the constitutional requirements for legislative sessions and leadership.
“This Court emphatically declares that it is within the power and authority of the Supreme Court of Liberia to say what the law is without fear or favor, irrespective of the parties before the Court,” the opinion read.
Central to the Court’s decision is its reaffirmation of Articles 33 and 49 of the 1986 Constitution, which designate the Speaker—or in their absence, the Deputy Speaker—as the only constitutionally recognized presiding officers of the House.
“The Constitution provides that a quorum shall consist of a simple majority of the members of the Honorable House of Representatives,” the Court stated, “but such quorum must be presided over by the presiding officer defined under Article 49 of the Constitution as the Speaker, and only in his absence, the Deputy Speaker.”
The Court found that Rep. Koon’s assumption of the Speakership and the proceedings he led were illegal, pointing out that Speaker Koffa was never absent and was actively presiding over legitimate sessions at the time.
“Speaker Koffa not being absent to preside over plenary sessions, the Deputy Speaker or any representative for that matter could not legally preside over any plenary session,” the Court ruled. “Any action or sitting by the majority to the exclusion of the Speaker presiding while he is present and available to preside is unconstitutional and without the appeal of the law, and we so hold.”
A Parallel House Without Legal Standing
The Court expressed deep concern over the existence of two parallel legislative sessions, with one led by Speaker Koffa and another by Rep. Koon, labeling the latter a “self-styled majority bloc” operating outside of constitutional bounds.
“These parallel settings and/or actions lack legal foundation either by the dictates of the Constitution or any other laws within this jurisdiction,” the Court noted. “Such actions are in total disregard to the law which members of the House of Representatives took an oath to uphold and protect.”
In a particularly striking moment during oral arguments, one of the counsels for the respondents—those supporting Koon—was asked by the Court to explain the whereabouts of Speaker Koffa during a session chaired by Deputy Speaker Thomas Fallah. The response, the Court recounted, was that Speaker Koffa was “in another room” within the Legislature.
“This response raises the cardinal question of whether the Deputy Speaker or any other representative could legally act as the presiding officer for a plenary session… while the Speaker was present and available to perform his constitutionally delegated tasks,” the Court wrote. “The answer is emphatically no.”
Legislative Acts Nullified
Among the major acts declared void by the Court was the passage of the Fiscal Year 2025 national budget, which the Koon-led bloc claimed to have lawfully enacted. The Court condemned the act as “recklessly endangering the full credit and credibility of the government,” stating that the budget was “passed without authorization.”
The amended Bill of Information, according to the ruling, presented compelling evidence that the Koon bloc had also:
- Withheld salaries and benefits from certain lawmakers;
- Authorized disbursement of public funds for personal gain;
- Forcibly seized the Speaker’s office;
- Attempted to recall ECOWAS representatives without legal basis.
“All these actions were done in deliberate and intentional violations and in direct contravention of the Court’s ruling and final judgment,” the opinion read. “Any sittings or actions by members of the Legislature not in conformity with the intent of Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution are ultra vires.”
Attorney General’s Opinion Dismissed
The Court also dismissed the relevance of a legal opinion issued by the Attorney General that sought to validate the Koon bloc’s authority. While noting that the Attorney General may advise the executive branch, the justices were clear: “Such opinions do not change or affect the rulings and/or opinions of the Supreme Court.”
A Constitutional Crisis Reined In
Legal experts have described the judgment as a judicial rebuke and a critical intervention in what had become a full-blown constitutional crisis. The Supreme Court made it clear that the issue at hand was not merely a political power struggle, but one that threatened the legitimacy of democratic governance.
“Failure to abide by the mandate of the Constitution is repugnant to this supreme and fundamental law,” the Court warned, “and said disregard for the constitutional mandates exposes the nation to lawlessness and poses the risk of undermining the democratic and law-abiding culture for which the Constitution was promulgated.”
Mandate Clarified
The Court granted the amended Bill of Information specifically “as it relates to the parties’ uncertainty of the December 6, 2024, opinion and judgment.” It ordered that all parties adhere strictly to the Court’s interpretation of Articles 33 and 49 and cease any actions that deviate from it.
“The ‘majority bloc’ is hereby mandated to operate in accordance with the Supreme Court’s interpretation,” the justices ruled. “The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to inform the parties of this Court’s decision, and it is hereby so ordered.”
Discussion about this post