Monrovia, Liberia – Leaders of the Liberia National Bar Association (LNBA) are divided over the president’s recent reaction, Cllr. Bornor M. Varmah, to the Supreme Court’s decision on April 23, 2025. Cllr. F. Juah Lawson, the association’s vice president, distanced herself from the statement made by the head of the LNBA just a few days later.
Cllr. Lawson “That statement belongs to the President of the LNBA personally, not the LNBA, so I won’t take ownership of it.”
According to her, she advised the President about getting to the Executive Committee before coming up with a statement, but he did not listen. Through its president, the Liberia National Bar Association stated on Tuesday, April 29, 2025, that it disagreed with a number of significant elements of the April 23, 2025, Supreme Court decision. The Court ruled that the Majority Bloc, led by Representative Richard Nagbe Koon, had violated the Constitution and that Speaker J. Fonati Koffa was the rightful Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The LNBA respectfully disagreed with several aspects of the decision in a news release released on Tuesday, April 29, 2025, but accepted the Court’s responsibility in interpreting constitutional issues.
The LNBA challenged the Court’s interpretation and the ruling’s practical ramifications for the idea of separation of powers, even as it upheld the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction as the ultimate judge of constitutional and legal disputes.
According to the LNBA, a Bill of Information is a procedural instrument used to make a ruling easier to understand or to draw the Court’s attention to matters that impact its mission. It shouldn’t take the place of procedures for settling issues that are fundamentally political, especially those pertaining to the Legislature’s internal structure, leadership, or operational autonomy.
According to LNBA President Cllr. Varmah, the ongoing dispute in the House of Representatives is essentially political in character, even though it involves constitutional issues. He underlined that institutional discussion, consensus-building, and commitment to democratic standards are necessary for a political resolution to this problem. Although the Court may offer interpretive advice, political goodwill and adherence to constitutional limits are primarily required for the enforcement and application of its rulings in these cases.
