Liberia: Analysis – Kolubah’s Fall Sealed By Allies Who Turned Away When It Mattered Most
MONROVIA — The Unity Party wanted Rep. Yekeh Y. Kolubah gone. The opposition gave them the votes to do it.
Exactly 49 lawmakers, drawn from 14 of Liberia’s 15 counties, signed the expulsion resolution — precisely the two-thirds constitutional threshold required to remove an elected member from office.
At least 18 of the lawmakers who signed onto Kolubah’s removal are members of opposition parties, the very political bloc to which Kolubah had aligned himself after breaking with the ruling Unity Party government he campaigned to bring to power. They came from the Congress for Democratic Change, the Citizens Patriotic Party, the Movement for Progressive Change, the Vision for Liberia Transformation, the Liberia Restoration Party, the Liberia National Union, the National Democratic Coalition, the Alternative Liberal Party and the Concerned Movement for Change.
Beyond the opposition signatories, members of the Unity Party itself, the party whose door-to-door campaign Kolubah had worked ahead of the 2023 elections, also voted to remove him.
Kolubah has no natural allies left in the House. He was dumped by the government side when he turned critic. He was dumped by the opposition side when it mattered most.
The Case the House Built
The formal proceedings against Kolubah were triggered April 9, 2026, when a Montserrado County lawmaker filed a complaint during the First Extraordinary Session, alleging gross misconduct, oath violation, repeated breach of House rules and conduct that had brought the Legislature into public disrepute. The Inspector General of the Liberia National Police separately raised concerns about national security. The House referred the matter to the Committee on Rules, Order and Administration, chaired by Rep. James M. Kolleh of Bong County, with a 10-day mandate to investigate and report.
The allegations against Kolubah suggested that the disputed territory between Liberia and Guinea belongs to Guinea — remarks his critics argued undermined national sovereignty and handed adversarial foreign actors a propaganda weapon at a moment of active border tension. The committee later recommended that, after his expulsion, Kolubah be turned over to the Ministry of Justice for prosecution.
The committee dropped two of the three original complaints on procedural grounds. The Inspector General, as a member of the Ministry of Justice, could not serve simultaneously as complainant and potential future prosecutor, they argued. A separate submission from an individual constituent of District 10 was ruled procedurally deficient on the grounds that it should have come as a class action rather than a personal petition. That left the Montserrado lawmaker’s complaint as the sole operative basis for the proceeding.
On April 13, Kolubah appeared before the committee but submitted a written request for a five-day extension to consult legal counsel. The committee granted two business days. When Kolubah returned April 15, he brought a high-profile legal team that included former Associate Justice Cllr. Kabineh Ja’neh and two other senior counselors.
The lawyers immediately challenged the sufficiency of the citation, demanded access to all statements attributed to their client, the government’s official position on the Guinea border dispute, and documentation that Kolubah’s remarks had been celebrated and disseminated by Guinean authorities. They requested an additional five business days and asked to speak on Kolubah’s behalf.
The committee denied every request. House procedure, it ruled, requires members to respond to proceedings personally, with lawyers present in an advisory capacity only. Because the hearing was quasi-judicial rather than a formal court proceeding, the strict evidentiary rules of judicial forums did not apply. The committee chair called a 30-minute recess. When the hearing resumed, the committee voted unanimously to deny all remaining requests and proceed.
Kolubah’s legal team stood up and walked out. Kolubah followed, telling the panel he would not remain without his lawyers. In their absence, the complainant presented his evidence. Each exhibit was identified, testified to and formally admitted into the record. Committee members and other lawmakers present then cross-examined him — a process the committee said further established which specific House rules Kolubah had violated.
The committee found the walkout itself dispositive. It drew a direct parallel to the Senate expulsion of Sen. Sampson Bedell Fahn II on Oct. 23, 1998, under the leadership of the late Senate Pro Tempore Charles W. Brumskine, who was removed for gross misconduct and refusing to appear before a Senate committee. The ROA committee argued Kolubah’s conduct was worse: He had appeared, then deliberately walked out while proceedings were actively underway, and had continued making what the report described as denigrating statements against the House and public officials even as the process concluded.
The committee grounded its recommendation in Article 38 of the 1986 Constitution, which authorizes each chamber to expel a member for cause with a two-thirds concurrence, and in Rule 9.2 of the House Rules and Procedures, which mirrors that constitutional standard. It further cited Rule 48.1, mandating disciplinary action for ethics violations; Rule 11, requiring members to uphold and defend the Constitution; and Rule 42.1, requiring members to maintain the prestige and dignity of the House at all times.
The Court They Defied
What makes the expulsion legally volatile is not the vote itself but the circumstances under which it was taken.
Before the House voted, the Supreme Court had issued a stay order directing Speaker Richard Nagbe Koon, Deputy Speaker Thomas Fallah, the House Chief Clerk, the Sergeant-at-Arms and all individuals acting under their authority to halt further proceedings pending a judicial conference scheduled for April 20 at 2:30 p.m. before Associate Justice Yussif D. Kaba.
The House voted anyway.
The stay had been obtained via a writ of prohibition — a court order directing a body to cease actions exceeding its legal jurisdiction. The petition named the House, the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, the Chief Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms as respondents. Yet the committee completed its work on Thursday, and the full House ratified the findings the following day.
It was not the first time the court had been compelled to intervene in a disciplinary proceeding involving Kolubah. In 2021, a justice in chambers found that the House had denied Kolubah due process in a suspension proceeding, compelling the Legislature to lift the ban, which it did within minutes of being told a writ of prohibition would otherwise be issued. The House this time chose not to wait.
If Justice Kaba finds that the House violated the stay order, exceeded its constitutional authority, or denied Kolubah due process, the court could issue the writ of prohibition and declare the expulsion void ab initio — legally as if it never occurred. Such a ruling could require Kolubah’s reinstatement and expose House leadership to contempt proceedings.
The Dissent That Was Overrun
Not everyone in the House agreed. Rep. Musa Hassan Bility of Nimba County District 7 filed a formal internal complaint about the committee’s conduct, arguing that when a body exercises quasi-judicial authority, the accused must be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard — including through active legal representation. He further argued that the committee had proceeded without clearly identifying which provision of the Constitution, House rules or statutory law Kolubah had allegedly violated.
“This matter goes beyond one individual,” Bility wrote to Speaker Koon and members of the 55th Legislature. “It concerns the credibility of this House and the democratic values we claim to defend.”
At least one Bong County lawmaker also openly opposed the expulsion, warning against a rush to judgment and arguing that the Legislature should instead summon the ministers of Justice, Foreign Affairs, Internal Affairs and National Defense to provide clarity on the border crisis before taking any punitive action against a colleague.
Alternative National Congress Political Leader Alexander B. Cummings noted that during the CDC-led administration, Kolubah had been tolerated as a necessary opposition voice. Under the Unity Party government, the same conduct had become grounds for expulsion. “That is the height of hypocrisy,” Cummings said.
Human rights lawyer and former Solicitor General Tiawan Saye Gongloe had also warned that using legislative expulsion as a substitute for criminal prosecution would blur the constitutionally mandated separation between the legislative and judicial branches. “The Legislature is not a criminal court and cannot determine guilt or innocence for such an offense,” Gongloe said.
Those arguments did not carry the chamber.
His legal team had not issued a public statement responding to the expulsion at the time of publication. The Supreme Court conference before Justice Kaba, scheduled for April 20, will determine whether the House’s defiance of the stay order produces a constitutional remedy, or whether Kolubah’s eight-year legislative career ends not with a court order, but with the silence of colleagues who once needed his voice.
