What Koon's Re-Argument Means for Supreme Court Ruling on Koffa’s Bill of Information

 

The Supreme Court of Liberia, in its April 23 opinion in the ongoing power struggle at  the House of Representatives, declared the  "Majority Bloc"  actions unconstitutional and effectively ended Representative Richard N. Koon’s controversial speakership. 

In the court’s judgment, it described the Bloc’s actions as a “flagrant disregard for constitutional order” and nullified all decisions taken during their unsanctioned legislative sessions.

Much of the present crisis dates back to late 2024, when tensions in the Lower House boiled over. On November 21, 2024, the Majority Bloc, then claiming the support of 50 lawmakers, declared the Speakership vacant and controversially elected Rep. Richard Koon to replace the embattled Speaker J. Fonati Koffa. 

This move was not conducted during a formal plenary session but through a resolution read outside the established legislative framework. In defiance of both the rules governing the Legislature and the Constitution.

 According to the House of Representatives  rule 9 under removal and expulsion of members, it states that " 9.1 The Speaker, Deputy Speaker and other officers of the House may be removed from office for cause by a resolution of a two-thirds majority of the members of the House. 9.2 member may be expelled from the House for cause by a resolution of a two-thirds majority of the members of the House." 
 

The Key Constitutional Provisions of Article 49 of the Liberian Constitution: The Election and Removal of the Speaker:
The House of Representatives must elect a Speaker every six years. The Speaker can only be removed for cause by a resolution supported by a two-thirds majority of the House members. This provision establishes the legal threshold for removing a Speaker and requires adherence to procedural and substantive requirements, which is stated as “for cause” in Article 49.

AS TO ARTICLE 33 of the Constitution, “Quorum for Legislative Business,” which is also stated in Article 33. A simple majority, more than half of the members, constitutes a quorum to conduct business. 

After the election of Koon, the group instructed House staff to transfer office resources and notify the other branches of government and foreign missions that a new Speaker was in place.

However,  Koffa outright rejected the group's action, calling it an illegal seizure of power. He filed a petition before the Supreme Court on November 19, two days before the Majority Bloc’s action, arguing that the group had intentionally boycotted regular sessions and disrupted the legislative process, particularly delaying the passage of the national budget.

The Supreme Court later issued an opinion referring to the Majority Bloc’s actions as “ultra vires”—beyond their lawful authority. However, the opinion stopped short of issuing a binding mandate or judgment, leaving room for ambiguity. 

That lack of clarity allowed both camps to claim some form of legal validation. The Koon bloc leaned on a subsequent legal opinion from the Ministry of Justice, which appeared to side with the Majority Bloc, thereby prompting the Executive Branch to begin recognizing Koon as the legitimate Speaker.

During a March 26 hearing on the Bill of Information filed by Koffa, Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene Gyapay Yuoh sharply criticized the Majority Bloc for ignoring the Court’s ruling, warning of the dangerous precedent their actions could set.

In the April 23, 2025, Opinion and Ruling in Koffa’s Bill of Information, the justices wrote, “Hon. Koffa continues to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and that all sittings and meetings over which he did not preside are unconstitutional and without the pale of the law are valid and legitimate.”

After the opinion, Koon filed a petition for re-argument in the case with the court.

In the petition for re-argument, Koon argues that the justices should not only disgorge whatever compensations or benefits they have received, but they should also be held liable and appropriate sanctions should be imposed for such serious misconduct, knowingly requesting an unconstitutional assembly of the majority bloc to appropriate funds for their salaries and benefits.

The petition added, “And, knowingly consuming such salaries and benefits as unconstitutionally and illegally authorized by the assembly above the petitioners.”

“A petition for re-argument is the proper judicial process to facilitate the possibility of Your Honors’ correction of these egregiously erroneous rulings, which could soon possibly destroy the full faith and credit of the Republic of Liberia and foster social and political unrest,” they claim in the petition.

The petitioners accuse the Justices of overstepping their authority, leading to a call for a re-argument to rectify perceived errors. The petition raises concerns about the separation of powers and the undermining of judicial independence, highlighting potential implications for the governance of Liberia.

The re-argument request filed by Cllr. Varney Sherman of the Sherman and Sherman Law Firm, the petitioners argue that the High Court ignored these cardinal principles of constitutional governance and instead attempted to usurp and did usurp powers and authorities exclusively granted to the Legislature by the Constitution.

They also accused the justices of being guilty of malfeasance for receiving and disbursing Liberian Government funds, which they knew or should have known had been authorized by the informants through an unconstitutional and illegal process.

Cllr. Ruth Jappah says a re-argument is for the high court to either uphold its ruling or reverse it themselves because they missed a point they should have considered.

For Atty. Sylvia Dahn, the motion for argument is also known as the motion for rehearing. The party that filed the same is the party against whom the initial case was ruled. 

“It is intended to draw the court's attention to certain basic facts or law issues overlooked by the court, which would have favored the side that didn't prevail in the initial suit.”

Atty. Dahn said, “Once this motion is heard and determined, the court may withdraw its previous opinion if it agrees with the party that files it. Or the court may disagree with the party that filed and reinstate its previous ruling.”

When communication lead Vehzelee Sumo appeared on Wednesday on Prime FM, he claimed that the current ruling from the high court is mute because one of the justices signed the petition for re-argument.

This was confirmed by Atty. Dahn, who said, “ Once a petition for re-argument is filed and received by one of the justices, the signed opinion by the majority justices remains available to be assigned for hearing.  During this period, the previous mandate in the previous ruling is placed on ice.”

Former Chief Justice Francis Allison supported the same: Which salient point, if considered, could change the Court's ruling.”

Both Koon and Koffa lawyers were contacted; Cllr. Sherman, the legal representative of Koon, responded with this: “The law is that a party to a Supreme Court ruling may file a petition for re-argument of the case where the party believes that the Supreme Court committed an error of law and/or mistake of fact, which affects the outcome of the case."

He added that a party has three days after interpretation of the ruling to file a petition for re-argument.

Sherman said a precondition for filing is that one of the concurring justices should approve the petition, adding that once the approved petition is filed, the case is automatically re-docketed for hearing by the Supreme Court. 

“That is the approved and filed petition automatically suspends the Supreme Court's ruling until after the petition for re-argument is heard and determined by the full bench of the Supreme Court,” said Sherman.

The petition from Koon has is currently docketed for re-argument by the court.

When Cllr. Arthur Johnson responds. This article will be updated.

Conclusion: The April 23 opinion by the Supreme Court is currently not applicable until the court decides on the petition for re-argument filed by Koon.