Claim: “The Supreme Court has placed a stay order on the so-called majority bloc.”
Source: Aloysius Howe, special aid to Liberia’s ex-finance minister Samuel Tweah.
Verdict: No, the Supreme Court did not issue a stay order on the majority bloc in Speaker Koffa’s removal saga instead the Justice-in-Chamber.
Full Text: Following the issuance of a stay order of the Chamber Justice of the Supreme Court against some members of the House of Representatives seeking the removal of the speaker, Howe on October 25, 2024, did a Facebook post, claiming that the Supreme Court has placed a stay order on the majority bloc and has asked them to halt all further proceedings and actions in the matter pending the outcome of the conference.
As of the time of our check, the post attracted 65 reactions, 117 comments, and 11 shares.
For the past few weeks, 43 Representatives, led by Nimba County District #5 lawmaker Samuel G. Kogar, have been removed to depose Speaker Fonati Koffa.
On October 25, 2024, Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, Sr., Associate Justice presiding in Chambers of the Court, issued a directive citing a conference scheduled for November 4, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. following a petition filed for a writ of prohibition by the Speaker of the 55th legislature, praying the Chambers Justice to halt his removal proceedings by the ‘Majority Bloc’ of the House of Representatives.
A writ of prohibition is a legal instrument that prevents, forbids, or halts a judicial proceeding.
Verification: The New Judicial Law– Title 17, Revised Section 2.6, gives the Chief Justice the power to appoint a Justice presiding in Chambers.
It is stated in clear terms 2.6 that: “At all times, in term and out of term, there shall be a justice presiding in the Chambers of the Supreme Court who shall be designated by the Chief Justice in regular rotation from among the Associate Justices, and no such Associate Justice designated shall delegate his powers to another.”
Section 2.9 talks about remedial and extraordinary writs, and it states that: “power to issue is limited to Justice presiding in Chambers. Except as provided in paragraph 2 and as may be otherwise provided by statutes, the power to issue remedial or extraordinary writs in exercise or aid of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and to otherwise issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and other remedial or extraordinary writs and processes, shall reside exclusively in the Justice presiding in Chambers.”
This simply implies that for a mandate or decision to be considered a decision from the Supreme Court binding on the courts below or proceedings, it has to emanate from the full bench of that honorable Court.
Judicial Canon Two, paragraph 5, talks about the equal voting rights of the five Justices of the Supreme Court that will be binding on the lower courts or proceedings.
It states: “In the jurisdiction process, the Chief Justice and Associate Justices shall have equal votes to reach a decision. In case of tied votes, the Chief Justice who, as a matter of course, is the last vote, shall cast the decisive votes of the majority sitting and voting shall be binding on the court.
Cllr. Jimmy Saah Bombo says that when a party files a writ of prohibition with the Chambers Justice, the first thing that the Chambers Justice does is to issue an Alternative writ citing both parties for a conference to understand the merit of the case to determine whether or not to issue the writ.
“If the Chambers Justice deems it fit to issue the writ, he or she issues a preemptory, thus allowing the adverse party to file their response.
If and when the adverse party is not satisfied with the Chambers Justice decision, they take an appeal with the Supreme Court full bench.
The Supreme Court either reversed the justice in the chamber’s decision or affirmed his decision. It’s when and then the decision becomes the Supreme Court decision. “But why in Chambers, any decisions made by the Chambers Justice, he or she is acting on behalf of himself or herself,” Cllr. Bombo said.
Conclusion: Based on our search and findings about the voting procedures at the level of the Supreme Court, we consider that the decision made by a justice presiding in Chambers cannot be considered as a decision of the Supreme Court because his decision is subject to scrutiny by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court. Hence, the stay order was not issued by the high court instead, it was justice-in-chamber.
Written by By: Richards Watson, Montserrado grant Fellow
