Actions by Richard Koon and the Majority Bloc in the House of Representatives of Liberia, involving the rejection of a Supreme Court ruling and the use of force to assert leadership, raise serious constitutional concerns. These actions can be analyzed under Article 76(a)(5) of the Liberian Constitution, which defines treason as “abrogating or attempting to abrogate, subverting or attempting or conspiring to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or any other means which attempts to undermine this Constitution”. This provision tells the gravity of their defiance, as it directly challenges the constitutional order and the authority of the judiciary.
Liberia’s Constitution vests the Supreme Court with the final authority on constitutional issues, as outlined in Article 66. This article establishes the Court as the “final arbiter of constitutional issues” and grants it “final appellate jurisdiction in all cases”. The Court’s rulings are binding and essential for maintaining constitutional order. By defying these rulings, the Majority Bloc undermines the Court’s role and threatens the stability of Liberia’s governance structure. This defiance not only erodes judicial authority but also risks plunging the country into political instability and constitutional crisis.
Separation of powers is a cornerstone of Liberia’s constitutional framework, dividing authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent any one branch from dominating the others. However, this principle does not preclude the Supreme Court from intervening in constitutional issues arising from other branches of government. In fact, the Court’s role as the final arbiter of constitutional disputes is enshrined in Article 66 of the Liberian Constitution. The Court’s authority to decide on constitutional issues is not limited by the separation of powers doctrine; instead, it is empowered to ensure that all actions by the legislative and executive branches comply with the Constitution.
In Liberian jurisprudence, treason requires affirmative actions or overt acts, as clearly stated in Article 76. The active defiance by Richard Koon and the Majority Bloc, involving the use of force to assert leadership contrary to a Supreme Court ruling, aligns more closely with the definition of treason under Article 76(a)(5). This precedent suggests that such actions could be considered treasonous, given their direct challenge to constitutional authority and judicial decisions. Furthermore, the Court’s intervention in such matters is not an overreach but a necessary assertion of its constitutional mandate to maintain the rule of law.
Implications of this defiance extend beyond legal consequences, affecting the broader governance and stability of Liberia. Noncompliance with judicial decisions can lead to political instability, erosion of democratic institutions, and a cycle of constitutional infractions. Respecting judicial decisions is crucial for preventing further destabilization and fostering a culture of lawfulness. Ultimately, upholding the Constitution and respecting judicial authority are essential for preserving Liberia’s democratic future and preventing the erosion of its governance structures.