The President of the National Bar receives public backlash for speaking against the Supreme Court Ruling on the leadership impasse in the House of Representatives here.
By Lincoln G. Peters
Monrovia, Liberia, May 1, 2025 – A day after issuing a statement, criticizing the Supreme Court Ruling on the leadership impasse at the House of Representatives, the President of the Liberian National Bar Association, Cllr. Bonor M. Varmah suffers verbal attack from top lawyers here.
The lawyers are calling for contempt charges to be slammed against the LNBA President, for violating ethical standards, undermining and denigrating the Supreme Court on its ruling involving embattled Speaker Jonathan Fonati Koffa and Representative Richard N. Koon of the Majority bloc.
The experienced senior lawyers described Cllr. Varmah’s statement against the Supreme Court as flawed, misguided, deeply troubling, and inconsistent with ethical responsibilities of the Bar in safeguarding the rule of law.
They note that the LNBA’s role in promoting legal discourse is commendable; however, its public commentary on issues currently awaiting re-argument before the Supreme Court raises significant concerns about contempt and the potential violation of the sub-judice rule. This conduct undermines the integrity and independence of the judicial process.
Cllr. Agustin Chea, Senate Judicial Committee Chairperson, Cllr. Jonathan Massaquoi, Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson and several others frown on Cllr. Varmah, for kicking against the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Sinoe County Senator, Cllr. Augustine S. Chea, in a response to the National Bar via his official Facebook page, said he bowed his head in shame for his profession, while arguing that the President of the Bar, Cllr. Varmah made similar arguments of the “Majority Bloc” and others with the same logic:
According to him, the LNBA noted that the Supreme Court and others have received and are receiving payments from the budget passed by the “Majority Bloc” and signed by Rep. Koon; therefore, that legitimizes the “Majority Bloc,” and Rep. Koon as Speaker.
He continues that the LNBA also disclosed that the Supreme Court issued a second opinion and judgment in the same constitutionality case, instead of just clarifying its ultra vires ruling, but used “unconstitutional” for the Majority Bloc, with no reference to Speaker Koffa.
But, Cllr. Chea argues that the ultra vires ruling didn’t apply to Speaker Koffa, noting that the ruling was rather misinterpreted to suit the very position that the LNBA President Varmah is espousing.
“And it’s because of the misinterpretation that Speaker Koffa asked the Court to clarify its ruling. So, instead of using the same ultra vires, which they couldn’t comprehend, the Court used another word that has similar or the same meaning, “unconstitutional.” Straightforward! The exercise of powers beyond that provided by the Constitution is ultra vires, meaning outside the constitutional powers or authority. And the exercise of powers not in accordance with or authorized by the Constitution is unconstitutional. Isn’t that the same language put differently, for clarity?” He asked.
Furthermore, responding to the LNBA’s assertion that the enforcement of the Supreme Court’s decisions “depends on political goodwill”, Cllr. Chea wonders if the Bar President is saying that the Executive has the discretion whether or not to enforce decisions of the Supreme Court; in this instance, that Fonati Koffa is the legitimate Speaker and should be recognized as such.
“How a speaker is elected is a ‘political question.” The President of the lawyers is telling us that there are no constitutional standards for the election of a speaker. Uhm! Doesn’t Article 49 speak to that? Any quorum can conduct business or sessions of the House of Representatives. What does Article 49 say about who should preside if there’s a quorum to hold sessions or conduct business? Using that faulty reasoning, the VP or any officer of the Bar can convene meetings of the Bar without the President or his approval, when the President is present or not incapacitated, if the VP or that other officer has a quorum. So say President Varmah”, he argues.
For his part, renowned criminal lawyer, Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson accused the Bar President of undermining the Supreme Court.
“Mr. President of the LNBA, your position statement about the Supreme Court’s ruling has effectively undermined the Supreme Court. First time for the Bar”, Cllr. Johnson notes.
Cllr. Jonathan Massaquoi, former Executive Director of the Office of War and Economic Crimes, in a statement issued late Tuesday, April 30, 2025, cautioned RESPONSE TO THE SUB JUDICE NATURE OF THE LNBA’S PRESS STATEMENT IN LIGHT OF THE PENDING RE-ARGUMENT, terming the LNBA President’s statement as misguided and flawed.
“As a Supreme Court Bar member and one of counsel for J. Fonati Koffa, Speaker of the Honorable House of Representatives, I wish to express my profound disappointment with the utterly unacceptable press statement released by the Liberian National Bar Association (LNBA) on April 28, 2025. This statement, addressing the Supreme Court’s Opinion on the Amended Bill of Information submitted by Speaker J. Fonati Koffa on April 23, 2025, is legally flawed, misguided, deeply troubling, inconsistent with the ethical responsibilities of the Bar in safeguarding the rule of law”, he explained.
Cllr. Massaquoi points to the Sub Judice Rule in Liberian Law, noting that under Liberian jurisprudence, the sub judice rule prohibits public commentary, particularly from legal professionals and institutions, on cases actively under judicial consideration.
He adds that the effect of this rule is to avoid prejudicing ongoing proceedings, protect the impartiality of the Court, and preserve the administration of justice.
“Unfortunately, the LNBA’s Statement seeks purposely to undermine and denigrate the Supreme Court. This principle is implicit in Liberia’s commitment to due process and the independence of the Judiciary under the 1986 Constitution, notably Article 21(h) – which guarantees due process in all proceedings before any tribunal, while Article 65 – vesting judicial power in the Supreme Court and other subordinate courts and emphasizing the independence of the Judiciary”, he clarifies.
Speaking at a press briefing on April 29, 2025, at the LNBA headquarters in Monrovia, National President, Cllr. Bornor M. Varmah argued that if the Supreme Court does not reconsider its judgment, the 2025 National Budget, passed during sessions held without Speaker Koffa, would be deemed illegal.
Accordingly, he notes that all salaries, payments for goods and services, and other disbursements made by the Executive could be nullified, an outcome he likens to a “criminal subversion of the government.”
“The Court must act swiftly to reverse this decision,” Cllr. Varmah declares and warns that “If left to stand, it will not only undermine the stability of the state, but set a precedent that permits judicial overreach into purely political matters.”
The controversy stems from the Supreme Court’s December 6, 2024, ruling, which stated that “Any sitting or actions by members of the legislature not in conformity with the intent of Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution are ultra vires”, meaning they were done ‘beyond the powers’ of law.
But the LNBA contends that the Supreme Court improperly used the Bill of Information as a procedural mechanism to reopen and rule again on a matter it had already decided. Cllr. Varmah emphasized that a Bill of Information should be limited to clarifying an existing judgment, not serve as a means to introduce new constitutional rulings. Editing by Jonathan Browne
