President Joseph Boachey’s national speech was an opportunity to reaffirm the fidelity of the administrative department to the constitution and the judicial authorities following the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling on the impasse of lawmakers.
Instead, I raised the alarm.
By signaling his intention to continue governing in the so-called “functioning quorum” – despite the Supreme Court’s decision to declare the actions of the “majority bloc” led by Richard Kuhn, President Boaches has stepped into a dangerous constitutional position.
The Supreme Court’s decision on April 23 was clear. The leadership and lawsuits committed by Kuhn and his faction had no legal justification. The court’s interpretation is not a recommendation. It is binding, final and enforceable.
Less than 24 hours after the verdict, however, the President effectively avoided it by standing in front of the nation and claiming that he would respect the court’s decision, while insisting that his administration would “continue to work with the quorum that ensures the full functioning of our government.”
This is not faithful to the law – it is a calculated rotation of it.
At its core, the move represents a violation of the very main principles President Boachey has vowed to defend: separation of power. Executive leaders in constitutional democracy cannot cherry-picked judicial decisions to observe and reinterpret judicial decisions for political convenience.
The President’s Language introduced a new, ungrounded phrase, “Constitutional quorum,” to justify his involvement with factions that the courts explicitly deemed illegal. It is the rhetorical hands that hide the troublesome reality. The rule of law is being tested from above.
To be clear, this impasse in the House of Representatives is not merely a political battle. This was a legal dispute that reached the highest court on the land and was resolved. Refusing to align the president’s administration’s actions to that legal resolution undermines jurisdiction and sets a priority that the law is negotiable in times of inconvenience.
The President attempted to divert this contradiction by highlighting ongoing consultations with traditional leaders and national stakeholders. Dialogue is certainly important.
However, there is no alternative to legal compliance. If governance is to move on to a volatile foundation of political compromise over legal clarity, the entire structure of democratic accountability begins to erode.
Sign up for the AllAfrica newsletter for free
Get the latest African news
success!
Almost finished…
You need to check your email address.
Follow the instructions in the email you sent to complete the process.
error!
There was a problem processing the submission. Please try again later.
Furthermore, this controversy unfolds against the backdrop of increased instability. Fires in Capitol buildings and vandalism targeting democratic institutions should serve as a harsh warning. President Boaches are right to condemn these cases. But failing to strengthen his judicial authority as a cornerstone of order does not cause more confusion.
In these moments, the character of a leader is defined not by the comfort of a speech of unity, but by the courage to support the principles in the face of partisan pressure.
President Boaches had a rare opportunity to lead constitutional examples. Instead, he chose the path to risk damaging the very institutions he claims to protect.
Liberian democracy, although fragile, has made great strides since the Civil War era. These interests are not independent – daily strengthening is necessary by respecting the rule of law. When the president himself appears willing to defy the judiciary, it sends a frightening message to citizens, lawmakers and future leaders that legal restrictions can bend to political goals.
This should not stand.
If President Boachey wants to maintain his legacy as a Democratic politician, he must quickly reverse the course. His government must fully and transparently adhere to the Supreme Court decision. Anything that is not afraid to drag Liberia backwards erodes faith in the institutions that took decades to rebuild.
The rule of law is not an option. It is the foundation of governance. And no matter how seasoned or honest they are, there is no leader.
