“As a practicing member of the Liberian Bar, I have observed with both interest and concern the recent public statement issued by the Liberian National Bar Association (LNBA) regarding the Supreme Court’s April 23, 2025 ruling on the Amended Bill of Information filed by Speaker J. Fonati Koffa.
While I acknowledge and respect the LNBA’s institutional mandate to foster legal debate and to defend the independence of the legal profession, I must categorically distance myself from the content and tone of its statement, which I find to be legally flawed and inconsistent with the Bar’s ethical responsibilities in upholding the rule of law.
The Supreme Court’s intervention in this matter was neither political nor extraordinary. Article 2 of the Liberian Constitution clearly states 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 vests in the Supreme Court the authority to interpret and enforce the Constitution, including in cases where legislative actions violate constitutional requirements such as quorum (Article 33) and the presiding authority of the Speaker (Article 49).
Under Rule IX of the Supreme Court Rules, a Bill of Information is the appropriate procedural tool when a party seeks to inform the Court that its judgment or mandate is being ignored, misrepresented, or undermined. In this instance, Speaker Koffa’s recourse to the Court was to alert it that its earlier judgment in the leadership dispute was being circumvented by a faction acting in direct violation of the Court’s guidance.
The LNBA’s argument that the Court “re-litigated” the matter fundamentally mischaracterizes the substance and purpose of the Court’s action. The Supreme Court did not adjudicate a new political question; it enforced compliance with its prior mandate-an act squarely within its constitutional purview[1][2].
Respectfully, the LNBA’s invocation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine overlooks a fundamental constitutional principle: no branch of government is immune from constitutional accountability. The Judiciary does not invade legislative autonomy by ensuring that the Legislature acts within constitutional boundaries. The assertion that the Judiciary cannot intervene when the Legislature violates the Constitution contradicts both established precedent and the core principle of checks and balances. The doctrine of separation of powers does not shield unconstitutional conduct; the Court’s role is to protect constitutional order, not to engage in politics[1][2].
The Bar’s suggestion for an independent mediation body is misplaced. The judiciary is the final interpreter of the law in Liberia. To encourage compromise in the face of clear constitutional violations undermines legal certainty and sets a dangerous precedent. Liberia is a nation of laws, not of negotiations when constitutional mandates are at stake.
As legal practitioners, we are bound by our ethical obligations under the Code of Moral and Professional Ethics for Lawyers in Liberia to uphold the law, even when it is inconvenient. Constructive legal criticism is welcome, but public disagreement with binding rulings-particularly when it encourages noncompliance or questions judicial legitimacy-should be exercised with the utmost caution and respect for the supremacy of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has spoken. As officers of the Court, we are duty-bound to uphold its ruling, even as we reserve the right to scholarly debate-but never in a manner that undermines the institutional authority of the Supreme Court. I therefore distance myself from the recent LNBA statement and reaffirm my commitment to the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution.” – Cllr. Saifuah Mai Gray
Cllr. Gray’s statement is issued in response to the LNBA’s April 28, 2025 critique of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which characterized the Court’s actions as judicial overreach and a violation of the separation of powers, and questioned the legitimacy of the Court’s enforcement of its mandate in the House leadership dispute[1][2].