Liberia: Koffa or Koon?

After months of legal wrangling, political grandstanding, and a deepening constitutional impasse, the Supreme Court of Liberia is expected today to issue a long-awaited ruling that could decisively determine who holds the legitimate Speakership of the House of Representatives: Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa, who was elected at the start of the 55th Legislature, or Rep. Richard Koon, chosen in November 2024 by a self-declared Majority Bloc amid procedural and constitutional controversy.

Led by Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh, the Full Bench of the Supreme Court will rule on a Bill of Information filed by Koffa’s legal team, which argues that the decision by the Majority Bloc to unilaterally remove him and install Koon was unconstitutional and in violation of both legislative procedure and the separation of powers enshrined in the Liberian Constitution.

The stakes of the ruling are high–not just for the House of Representatives but for the balance of power among Liberia’s three branches of government. If the Court rules in favor of Koffa, ordering his reinstatement as Speaker, it will effectively nullify Koon’s Speakership and place the Legislature in direct confrontation with the Judiciary. Should the Majority Bloc refuse to comply, it could trigger a full-blown constitutional crisis, testing the Supreme Court’s authority and the Executive Branch’s willingness to enforce judicial decisions.

Conversely, if the Court upholds the Majority Bloc’s decision to oust Koffa and validate Koon’s elevation, it could set a precedent that undermines constitutional order, enabling a simple majority of lawmakers to disregard due legislative process and oust elected leadership without the safeguards required by law.

Much of the present crisis dates back to late 2024, when tensions in the Lower House boiled over. On November 21, 2024, the Majority Bloc–then claiming the support of 50 lawmakers–declared the Speakership vacant and controversially elected Rep. Richard Koon to replace Koffa. This move was not conducted during a formal plenary session but through a resolution read outside the established legislative framework. In defiance of both the rules governing the Legislature and the Constitution, the group instructed House staff to transfer office resources and notify the other branches of government and foreign missions that a new Speaker was in place.

Speaker Koffa rejected the action outright, calling it an illegal seizure of power. His legal team moved swiftly, filing a petition before the Supreme Court on November 19, two days before the Majority Bloc’s action, arguing that the group had intentionally boycotted regular sessions and disrupted the legislative process–particularly delaying the passage of the national budget.

The Supreme Court later issued an opinion referring to the Majority Bloc’s actions as “ultra vires”–beyond their lawful authority. However, the opinion stopped short of issuing a binding mandate or judgment, leaving room for ambiguity. That lack of clarity allowed both camps to claim some form of legal validation. The Koon bloc leaned on a subsequent legal opinion from the Ministry of Justice, which appeared to side with the Majority Bloc, thereby prompting the Executive Branch to begin recognizing Koon as the legitimate Speaker.

That legal gray area formed the basis of the current Bill of Information, which Koffa’s lawyers filed in an effort to compel the Court to speak more definitively. The Revised Rules of the Supreme Court state that a Bill of Information is appropriate only to prevent interference with a “Judgment and/or Mandate of the Supreme Court.” Thus, part of the debate now centers on whether the Court’s earlier “ultra vires” opinion was merely advisory or constituted a mandate with enforceable power.

At the March 26 hearing of the Bill of Information, the Full Bench of the Supreme Court appeared visibly frustrated with the conduct of the Majority Bloc. Chief Justice Yuoh, whose retirement is slated for June 2025, did not mince words, chastising lawmakers for their disregard of established legislative and constitutional procedures. “It can create chaos,” she said, attributing the December 2024 fire that damaged the Capitol Building to the instability triggered by the leadership dispute.

The Court’s questioning of the Majority Bloc’s lead counsel, Cllr. Varney Sherman was pointed and at times hostile. Sherman argued that under legislative rules, a speaker need not be present for a session to be valid and that the Majority Bloc had the authority to elect new leadership. But several justices pushed back, emphasizing that the constitutionally elected Speaker could not be removed without following the law.

Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, in particular, emphasized that while the Court cannot physically compel lawmakers to obey, their actions must nevertheless align with constitutional standards. The absence of a formal mandate in the earlier ruling came under scrutiny as well, with Chief Justice Yuoh questioning Koffa’s legal team as to whether the Bill of Information was even procedurally valid. “Was there a mandate or a judgment issued by the Court?” she asked, a question that Koffa’s counsel, Cllr. Arthur Johnson, struggled to answer definitively.

The ruling expected today may either clarify the limits of legislative autonomy or raise further questions about the balance of power. If the Court finds that the actions of the Majority Bloc were not only ultra vires but invalidates them outright, it will compel the Executive to choose between enforcing judicial authority or aligning with a legislative bloc that has already installed its own leadership.

Should the Majority Bloc defy the Court, it could mark a dangerous turning point in Liberian governance, signaling that elected officials are not bound by judicial interpretation and effectively gutting the principle of checks and balances.

Whether the Supreme Court’s ruling will restore order or plunge the nation deeper into institutional crisis remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that today’s judgment will reverberate beyond Capitol Hill–and possibly define the trajectory of Liberia’s constitutional democracy for years to come.

By Liberian Observer.