Lawyers representing the House of Representatives on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, requested the Supreme Court, through Justice in Chambers, Yusuf D. Kaba, to dismiss a Bill of Information (BoI) Montserrado County District #10 former Representative Yekeh Y. Kolubah filed.
The lawyers had insisted that Kolubah’s expulsion from the Legislature was “constitutional, lawful, and carried out after due process.”
During proceedings before Justice Kaba, the House’s legal team argued that Kolubah was given a “fair opportunity to defend himself, but walked away from the disciplinary hearing convened to overhear allegations against him.”
“The respondent (Kolubah) was afforded due process, but elected to walk away from the very hearing convened to hear him speak for himself,” the House lawyers stated in their filing.
The House further maintained that it could not be held in contempt of court, “because no writ of prohibition or stay order was ever served on the Legislature before it proceeded with the disciplinary action that ejected Kolubah.”
“The House cannot be held in contempt for an order it never received,” the filing added.
Kolubah had reportedly petitioned the High Court through a BoI in which he claimed that his removal violated previous directives of the Supreme Court, and denied him “constitutional due process protections.”
The legal battle stemmed from the House’s decision on Friday, April 17, 2026, and expelled Kolubah after lawmakers of the 55th Legislature secured the 49 signatures required under the constitution to remove a sitting member of the august body. The action followed the adoption of a report from the House Committee on Rules, Order and Administration, which recommended his removal.
Plenary subsequently acted on the recommendation, reaching the constitutional threshold needed to enforce the expulsion.
The process gained added significance when Representative Jacob C. Debee, Chairman of the Rule of Law Caucus, signed onto the resolution, strengthening the final tally that led to Kolubah’s removal.
However, the expulsion process also exposed clear divisions within the House, as several prominent lawmakers reportedly declined to append their signatures.
Attorneys for the House challenged the validity of Kolubah’s filing, arguing that the court documents were “improperly served, and therefore legally defective.”
They also contended that Kolubah failed to exhaust internal legislative remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
Based on those arguments, the respondents urged Justice Kaba to dismiss the case, and uphold the House’s decision that expelled Kolubah.
Following oral arguments, no immediate ruling was delivered. Instead, the presiding Justice reserved decision, meaning the Court will announce its ruling at a later date.
Source: smartnewsliberia.com