-Former Nocal Boss Reacts to LNBA critique of Supreme Court’s ruling on House Impasse
As a practicing member of the Liberian Bar, I have read with interest and concern the recent public statement issued by the Liberian National Bar Association (LNBA) in response to the Supreme Court’s April 23, 2025 ruling on the Amended Bill of Information filed by Speaker J. Fonati Koffa.
While I respect the LNBA’s institutional role in fostering legal debate and protecting the independence of the profession, I find the content and tone of its statement to be not only legally flawed but also inconsistent with the ethical responsibilities of the Bar in safeguarding the rule of law.
The Supreme Court’s intervention was neither political nor extraordinary. Article 2 of the Liberian Constitution clearly provides that “any laws, treaties, statutes, decrees, customs and regulations found to be inconsistent with the Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void…” It further grants the Supreme Court the authority to interpret and enforce the Constitution, including in cases where actions by the Legislature violate its own internal constitutional boundaries, such as quorum (Art. 33) and the presiding authority of the Speaker (Art. 49).
Under Rule IX of the Supreme Court Rules, a Bill of Information lies where a party seeks to inform the Court that its judgment or mandate is being ignored, misrepresented, or undermined. In this case, the Speaker sought to alert the Court that its earlier judgment in the leadership dispute was being circumvented by a faction claiming authority in direct violation of the Court’s guidance.
The LNBA’s argument that the Court “re-litigated” the matter mischaracterizes both the substance and purpose of the Court’s action, which was simply to enforce compliance with its mandate, not adjudicate new political questions.
Respectfully, the LNBA’s invocation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine misses a key constitutional point: no branch is immune from constitutional accountability.
The Judiciary is not invading legislative autonomy by ensuring that the Legislature complies with constitutional provisions. The claim that the Judiciary cannot step in when the Legislature violates the Constitution contradicts both precedent and the fundamental principles of checks and balances.Indeed, the doctrine of separation of powers does not shield unconstitutional conduct.
The Court’s role is not political—it is protective of constitutional order. The Bar’s suggestion for an independent mediation body undermines the role of the judiciary as the final interpreter of the law. Liberia is a country of laws, not negotiations. When the Supreme Court speaks within its constitutional authority, its ruling is binding on all, including other branches and professional bodies.
To encourage compromise in the face of constitutional violations is to undermine legal certainty and create dangerous precedents.
As legal practitioners, we are bound by our ethical obligation under the Code of Moral and Professional Ethics for Lawyers in Liberia to uphold the law, even when it is inconvenient to do so. While constructive legal criticism is welcome, public disagreement with binding rulings—especially where it encourages noncompliance or questions judicial legitimacy—should be exercised with caution and respect for the supremacy of the Constitution.
The Court has spoken. We, as officers of the Court, must uphold its ruling, even as we reserve the right to scholarly debate—but never in a manner that casts doubt on the institutional authority of the Supreme Court.
