The majority bloc has filed a petition to the High Court docket for a re-argument of the Court docket’s judgment that identified Fonati Koffa as the Speaker of the Dwelling, tough their removal of Koffa and the passage of the 2025 fiscal price range as unconstitutional.
Members of the bloc luxuriate in raised considerations in regards to the Justices receiving benefits from the actions of the community and threatening to effect liable the justices and acceptable sanctions to be imposed on every of them, attainable impeachment, as they too are beneficiaries of actions of the unlawful community.
The petition argues that the Justices ought to gentle disgorge any compensation got and face penalties for their involvement within the unconstitutional assembly. The petition emphasizes the want for a correction of the Court docket’s rulings to reside doable unrest and uphold constitutional principles.
Within the petition for re-argument, the petitioners argue that the justices ought to gentle now not easiest disgorge regardless of compensations or benefits, which they’ve, they ought to and could maybe well be held liable and acceptable sanctions imposed for such serious misconduct knowingly requesting an unconstitutional assembly of the majority bloc to appropriate funds for their salaries and benefits.
The petition added, “And, knowingly consuming such salaries and benefits as unconstitutionally and illegally authorized by the aforesaid assembly of the petitioners.”
“A petition for re-argument is the proper judicial process to facilitate the possibility of Your Honors’ correction of these egregiously erroneous rulings, which could soon possibly destroy the full faith and credit of the Republic of Liberia and foster social and political unrest,” they philosophize within the petition.
The Justices had maintained their stance that Koffa remains the reliable Speaker and underlined the penalties of the majority bloc’s actions as unconstitutional and void.
Within the April 23, 2025, Figuring out and Ruling in Koffa’s Invoice of Recordsdata, the justices wrote, “Hon. Koffa continues to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives and that all sittings and meetings over which he did not preside are unconstitutional and without the pale of the law is valid and legitimate.”
Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene Yuoh who delivered the idea, mentioned, its “idea and judgment of December 6, 2024, is that any sitting or actions by the Majority Bloc, then respondents to the exclusion of Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, the duly elected presiding officer of the Dwelling of Representatives, while he’s gentle latest, and within the market to preside is unconstitutional and with out the pare of the legislation, making particular reference to the passage into legislation the price range for the Fiscal year 2025.
The petitioners accuse the Justices of overstepping their authority, ensuing in a call for a re-argument to rectify perceived errors. The petition raises considerations in regards to the separation of powers and the undermining of judicial independence, highlighting doable implications for the governance of Liberia.
The re-argument question filed by Cllr. Varney Sherman of the Sherman and Sherman Law Agency, the petitioners argue that the High Court docket overlooked these cardinal principles of constitutional governance, and as an change tried to usurp and did usurp powers and authorities completely granted to the Legislature by the Constitution.
They additionally accused the justices of themselves being responsible of malfeasance for receiving and disbursing Liberian Executive funds, which they knew or ought to gentle luxuriate in identified were authorized by the informants thru an unconstitutional and unlawful job.
Of their idea, the justices concluded that the Majority Bloc is an unconstitutional assembly of individuals of the Dwelling of Representatives and that every actions taken by them with out Koffa presiding as Speaker of the Dwelling of Representatives is unconstitutional and with out the faded of legislation.
“Then the entire budgetary process is also unconstitutional, null and void and that payments and settlements of obligations owed to all employees of the Liberian Government and to all persons who have provided services and sold properties to the Liberian Government are also unconstitutional, illegal, null and void, and these payments and settlements should promptly be reimbursed to the Liberian Government,” the re-argument question great.
In accordance with the petition, the judicial overreaching and blatant unconstitutional inference within the interior affairs and administration of the affairs of the Dwelling of Representatives, contrary to the SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE, could maybe well presumably, within just a few days descend the Republic of Liberia and the governance of the Republic of Liberia into chaos.
They additional argued that a fundamental precept of jurisprudence is that the court docket of legislation ought to gentle easiest enter a judgment, which is in a position to being enforced.
“That is a judgment, which is incapable of being enforced is tantamount to being a void judgment,” the petitioners emphasised.
They philosophize that the justices luxuriate in conceded that there may be never any mechanism to compel them to take a seat down below the gavel of Hon. Koffa, as Speaker of the Dwelling of Representatives.
Furthermore, the petitioner’s reference previous conditions where re-argument turned into granted to dazzling errors, suggesting inaccuracies within the Court docket’s judgment.
Given occasion of conditions where the Supreme Court docket had recalled their idea judgement thru a petition for re-argument, the petitioners named Harris et al. v. layweah et al., 39 LLR 571, In this case, they argued that, the Supreme Court docket held it may in all probability’t elaborate or elaborate its mandate by a bill of data; the factual job is to movement the Supreme Court docket for re-argument.
In a single other case, Cavalla Rubber Corporation v. The Liberian Trading and Construction Monetary institution, 38 LLR 153, they mentioned, the Supreme Court docket held that re-argument will be granted to dazzling errors where the case is one by which the precept fervent is serious and serious doubt exists as to the correctness of the resolution.
Take a look at in with out cost AllAfrica Newsletters
Safe the most modern in African data delivered straight to your inbox
“This is another way of alleging inaccuracies of the Justice who prepared the opinion of the Supreme Court,” the petitioners emphasised.
In accordance with the petition, just among the conditions relied upon within the “opinion in the Information proceeding as authority to allegedly remove uncertainty from the” December 6, 2024 Figuring out within the Constitutionality Case particularly present that, in conjunction with “the office of a Bill of Information is as provided by Part IX of the Supreme Court’s Rules, not to remove uncertainties in a previous opinion of the Supreme Court.”
Harris et al. v. layweah et al., 39 LLR 571, “the Supreme Court held it cannot interpret or clarify its mandate by a bill of information; the proper procedure is to move the Supreme Court for re-argument.”
In a single other case, Cavalla Rubber Corporation v. The Liberian Trading and Construction Monetary institution, 38 LLR 153, the Supreme Court docket held that re-argument will be granted to dazzling errors where the case is one by which the precept fervent is serious and serious doubt exists as to the correctness of the resolution; it’s one improper contrivance of alleging inaccuracies of the Justice who interesting the idea of the Supreme Court docket.
“Very important is that some of the cases relied upon in Your Honors’ Opinion in the Information proceeding as authority to allegedly remove uncertainty from Your Honors’ December 6, 2024 Opinion in the Constitutionality Case specifically provide that the office of a Bill of Information is as provided by Part IX of the Supreme Court’s Rules, not to remove uncertainties in a previous opinion of the Supreme Court.”
