“My View On The Constitutional And Legislative Consequences of The Conflict Between The Speaker of The House And The Majority Bloc

Introduction
The current political discord between Speaker J. Fonati Koffa and the majority faction within the House of Representatives, which the Deputy Speaker accompanies, highlights a critical conflict in Liberian legislative history. The majority bloc’s decision to express no confidence in the Speaker poses substantial legal and constitutional questions regarding the extent of legislative authority, the procedures for challenging or removing the Speaker’s rule, and the broader implications for democratic Governance. This opinion investigates the procedural and constitutional requirements regulating such actions and evaluates the effect of the Deputy Speaker’s alignment with the majority faction in this context. The reason for this analysis is fundamental to our democracy, and it goes to the foundation of the nation’s international image.

Examination of the House’s Legislative Provisions

1. Standing Rule #8: The House’s Standing Rule #8 establishes procedural guidelines for the general conduct of House business, the maintenance of quorum, and the convening of sessions. This rule necessitates that an authorized officer of the House convene any session, typically the Speaker or, in exceptional cases, the Deputy Speaker, when acting on the Speaker’s behalf. This is the standard interpretation. The majority bloc’s actions have the potential to undermine established procedures that ensure orderly and authorized legislative sessions by circumventing the Speaker’s or Deputy Speaker’s formal call. This procedural step is not merely symbolic but a precautionary measure that guarantees the transparent and lawful conduct of legislative processes with the appearance of authority.
2. Standing Rule #12: Standing Rule #12 delineates the procedure for House proceedings; however, it only grants the majority faction the unilateral authority to convene a session with the Speaker or, in their absence, the Deputy Speaker’s official capacity. This rule emphasizes the necessity of centralized leadership within the House to preserve procedural integrity and decorum. Consequently, the majority bloc’s reliance on Rule #12 to validate their session needs to be revised, as the rule does not permit the circumventing of leadership positions in the convening of a session. In substance, in the presence of the Speaker, meaning within the bailiwick of Liberia, the majority cannot convene a section where the Speaker is capacitated, and the majority bloc asks the Deputy Speaker to preside. Once the Deputy Speaker presides in the majority bloc’s session against the expressed approval of the Speaker, who is the Constituted authority, it is a gross violation of the House’s Rules and the Constitution of Liberia. The Deputy Speaker can only preside over the session when the Speaker is incapacitated from attending or is out of the bailiwick of Liberia. Today’s precedent for the Deputy Speaker to join the majority bloc against the Speaker shows that good governance and the rule of law remain significant challenges for Liberia’s post-war democracy.
3. Article 33 of the Liberian Constitution: According to Article 33, “a quorum for the transaction of business shall be established by a majority of each House.” This clause is crucial for maintaining the rule of the majority in legislative matters. Nevertheless, the mere existence of a quorum does not inherently grant members the authority to act outside of established procedures. Article 33 is part of a broader constitutional framework that assigns additional duties and responsibilities to the Speaker and Deputy Speaker to supervise legislative orders. Therefore, convening a session exclusively based on a majority quorum without the Speaker’s or Deputy Speaker’s formal consent violates constitutional requirements and may be perceived as undermining the rule of law within the House.

The Role of the Speaker and the Constitutional Implications
The Speaker, who serves as the president of the House of Representatives, is granted specific powers and responsibilities by the Liberian Constitution. The Speaker’s authority is essential for the House’s operational stability, as they are responsible for convening sessions, presiding over legislative proceedings, and ensuring that constitutional and legislative standards are upheld. The majority bloc’s endeavor to circumvent the Speaker’s role raises concerns regarding constitutional encroachment. This method poses substantial legal and institutional risks by disrupting the legislative hierarchy and challenging the separation of powers within the House.

Additionally, the Constitution does not explicitly authorize the removal of the Speaker through a “no-confidence” motion. This endeavor to circumvent established legislative leadership is legally unfounded without any statutory or constitutional provision granting the majority faction such authority. Typically, the Speaker’s removal would necessitate a formal impeachment process or another constitutionally mandated method rather than a resolution from the majority bloc. Consequently, any informal endeavors to dispute the Speaker’s authority could be deemed unconstitutional.

The Implications for Legislative Integrity of the Deputy Speaker’s Position
The constitutional analysis is further complicated by the Deputy Speaker’s decision to align with the majority faction opposing the Speaker. The Deputy Speaker is obligated to maintain the House’s structure and support the Speaker’s role unless there are legitimate constitutional grounds for opposition. This position necessitates impartiality and adherence to legislative rules. Nevertheless, the Deputy Speaker’s participation in the bloc’s endeavor may be interpreted as a conflict with their obligation to preserve institutional equilibrium and regard for legislative hierarchy.

The Deputy Speaker’s endorsement of the majority bloc’s actions may establish a precedent that undermines the authority of the House leadership structure despite the procedural and constitutional concerns. This could result in perpetual instability within the House, a loss of confidence in the legislative process, and an impact on the broader governance framework of Liberia if future Deputy Speakers align with factional interests rather than fulfilling their role as neutral figures.

What are the Consequences of the Present Dispute on Capitol Hill in Terms of Foreign Direct Investment(FDI)?
The interconnectedness of nations and individuals who engage in collective transactions for humanity’s benefit is now globalization’s focus. The following are some of the most direct influences as instruments of globalization attracting Foreign Direct Investment (DFI): rule of law, sound governance, policy on corruption, geopolitical attractions, human capacity, security, and stability. I will exclusively discuss the rule of law. In fragile and developing countries like Liberia, investments, such as foreign direct investment (FDI), can only be realized when the rule of law is effective. When the rule of law remains a significant challenge in any country, investors are always aware that the prospects for investment are uncertain and unlikely.The political dispute at the Capitol, where the first branch of government (THE LEGISLATURE), specifically the House of Representatives, is illegally, unprocedurally, unstatutorily, and unconstitutionally attempting to remove the constitutionally elected Speaker of the House of Representatives, will leave an indelible mark on the democratic and international image of Liberia. It will demonstrate that “our legislators are the lawbreakers in Liberia.” This example, if repeated, will present to the outside world the precedent it sets for our children and future generations that the incorrect procedure should be used to influence Liberian body politics. That the changes in democratic leadership are permitted to be induced by unconstitutional methods and incorrect regulations. THIS IS A REPETITION OF HISTORY AND A BAD PRECEDENT. During the 14-year civil war, Liberia’s democracy was undermined by the repetition of historical and political errors. A halt should be established to this practice. Liberians and political leaders continue to perpetuate the mistakes that precipitated the 14-year civil war, THE CRISIS OF GOVERNANCE. At what point will we learn?

Some of the Political and Historical Errors Committed by this Very Legislature (House of Representatives and Others

1. The illegal and unconstitutional removal of Hon. Melvin Snowe when he was serving as Liberia’s constitutionally Elected Speaker;
2. The Removal of Speaker Alex Tyler, also a Constitutionally Elected Speaker of the House of Representatives;
3. The Removal of His Honour Justice Kabineh Mohammed Ja’neh, Associate Justice of the Honorable Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia.
   Our Constitutional and political history reminds us that in all of these historical events, the Supreme Court was disrespected, and the Constitution was grossly violated.

In conclusion
Serious constitutional and legislative concerns are raised by the ongoing political conflict between the Speaker and the majority faction, which the Deputy Speaker accompanies. The significance of procedural compliance in convening sessions and exercising legislative authority is underscored by Standing Rules #8 and #12 and Article 33 of the Constitution. The majority bloc’s actions challenge the rule of law within the House by circumventing the Speaker’s authority without constitutional justification. They contravene both the Liberian Constitution and the legislative Standing Rules. The Deputy Speaker’s participation in these actions raises concerns regarding the impartiality and neutrality that are anticipated from the position.

To guarantee the stability and integrity of Liberia’s legislative body, it is imperative that all House members, including the Deputy Speaker, comply with established procedures, honor the Speaker’s position, and operate within the confines of constitutional authority. Although political disagreements are an inherent component of democratic governance, they must be effectively addressed to maintain the rule of law, respect the sequence of command (Chain of Command) within the House, and comply with the Constitution’s letter and spirit. This method is crucial for preserving public confidence in the institution and the legitimacy of the legislative process”