Members of the Liberia National Bar Association (LNBA) of the believe that that the Supreme Court erred by allowing informants in the proceeding to use the office of the Bill of Information (BoI) to have the Court issued a second opinion and Judgement in the same constitutionality case, which is very different from the first opinion in the same case on December 6, 2024.
LNBA, acknowledges the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Amended BoI filed by the House embattled Speaker J. Fonati Koffa.
By this the LNBA disagreed with the April 23, 2025, Court’s opinion as a testament to it role in interpreting constitutional matters.
The Bar said it respectfully disagreed with several key elements of the ruling.
The LNBA upholds the authority of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of constitutional and legal questions, but added: “We are constrained to express our disagreement with the Court’s interpretation and its practical implications on the doctrine of separation of powers.”
The LNBA affirms that a BoI, as a procedural tool, is designed to clarify the implementation of a judgment or bring to the Court’s attention issues affecting its mandate.
The Association added that it is not, and should not become, a substitute mechanism for settling inherently political questions—particularly those relating to the internal organization, leadership, or operational independence of the Legislature.
The ongoing conflict within the House of Representatives (HoR) is a matter that, though it may involve constitutional questions, is primarily political in nature that requires a political resolution through institutional dialogue, consensus-building and adherence to democratic norms.
LNBA said the Supreme Court may offer interpretative guidance on legal issues, the enforcement and implementation of its opinions in such matters depend heavily on political goodwill and respect for constitutional boundaries.
The LNBA said it is concerned that repeated reliance on the judiciary to resolve legislative disputes may erode public confidence in the independence of both branches of government and may set a troubling precedent where political actors abdicate their responsibility to resolve internal conflicts.
LNBA release stated that under Liberian jurisprudence and practice, a BoI is intended to clarify or enforce a judgment where there is confusion or obstruction.
The Court’s decision to allow the BoI was justified and procedurally correct given the confusion surrounding the meaning and application of its prior ruling of December 6, 2024, the LNBA observes that the Supreme Court expanded the function of the BoI by re-asserting and elaborating its prior ruling, effectively issuing a new substantive decision rather than simply clarifying it.
The Bar said this expansion risks inflating the BoI into a de-facto remedial tool, inviting future parties to misuse it for re-litigation rather than clarification.
The LNBA notes that on December 6, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled by indicating: “Any sitting or action by members of the legislature not in conformity with the intent of Article 33 and 49 of the Constitution are ultra vires.
Hence, members of the HoR are to conduct themselves, accordingly.
From the above rule, it is overly clear that a BoI in this jurisdiction, in its legal context and application, is a proceeding that complains of a judge or judicial officer who attempts to execute the mandate of the Supreme Court in an improper manner, or any person who interferes with the mandate of the Supreme Court.
In other words, a BoI may be brought against a judge, judicial officer or any person whomsoever, who acts contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court by disobeying, interfering, or obstructing the mandate of the Supreme Court.
The Bar states that the December 6, 2024, ruling of the Supreme Court did not have any clear mandate to which the BoI could lie.
However, the Bar agrees with the Supreme Court on the clear purpose of clarification of the December 6, 2024, ruling.
The Bar believes therefore, that the Supreme Court erred by allowing informants in the proceeding to use the office of the BoI to have the Supreme Court issued a second opinion and Judgement in the same constitutionality case, which is very different from the first opinion in the same case.
LNBA said the decision of the Court to declare: “Any sittings or actions of the ‘majority bloc’ (respondents) to the exclusion of Fonati Koffa, the duly qualified Presiding Officer of the HoR, while he is present and available to preside, is unconstitutional and without the pale of the law.”
In its April 23, 2025, opinion and judgment, the Supreme Court said that “… any sittings or actions of the ‘majority bloc’ (respondents) to the exclusion of Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, the duly qualified Presiding Officer of the HoR, while he is present and available to preside, is unconstitutional and without the pale of the law.
But LNBA emphatically states that if the sittings of the majority bloc are illegal, obviously then the 2025 National Budget is illegal and all persons who participated in the process and/or have benefitted from the process are guilty of having participated in an illegal process and facilitated the consummation of its illegality.
The LNBA believes that the Supreme Court has indicted itself of committing a very serious offense under the circumstance.
“That is why it is important that the Supreme Court quickly reconsiders its opinion and judgment and expunge itself from this embarrassment,” says LNBA.
Moreover, LNBA stated that the Supreme Court’s Opinion and Judgment constitute judicial overreach into matters exclusively reserved by the Constitution to the HoR; and this violates the Separation of Powers doctrine – the cornerstone of a Republican form of government.
The LNBA shall not condone legislative overreach in matters reserved by the 1986 Constitution to the Judiciary.
The LNBA shall not idly observe judicial overreach in matters reserved by the Constitution exclusively for the Legislature – matters such as determining who shall be the HoR’s Speaker and how the Speaker may be removed from office for cause. Noting that this is simply a violation of the Political Question Doctrine.
The LNBA meanwhile, reaffirms its dedication to upholding justice, protecting constitutional rights and ensuring the stability of the country’s democratic institutions.