The majority of the bloc filed petitions with the High Court for a re-assessment of the court’s decision that recognized Fonati Cofa as Speaker of the House, challenging the removal of Cofa and passing the 2025 fiscal budget as unconstitutional.
Bullock members raise concerns about judiciaries who benefit from group actions and threaten to take responsibility and take responsibility for each. They are likely to be ammunition each because they are beneficiaries of illegal group actions.
The petition argues that judicial authorities should disguise compensation received and affect their involvement in unconstitutional assembly. The petition underscores the need to amend the court’s ruling to prevent potential anxiety and support constitutional principles.
In the petition for the re-meeting, the petitioner argues that not only spoofing the compensation or benefits received, but should be liable, appropriate sanctions should be imposed, appropriate sanctions, and intentionally request a majority-block unconstitutional assembly for pay and benefits.
The petition added that “and willfully consume salaries and benefits as illegally and illegally permitted by the petitioner’s aforementioned Assembly.”
“The re-meeting petition is an appropriate judicial process to promote the possibility of correcting your honor against these false and false awards, and may quickly destroy the full faith and credibility of the Republic of Liberia and promote social and political unrest,” they argue in the petition.
The judge maintained his stance that Kofa remains a legitimate speaker, highlighting the consequences of the actions of the majority bloc as unconstitutional and void.
On April 23, 2025, in the opinion and verdict of the Coffa Bill of Information, Justice wrote:
Sie a Á a nien Yuo said, “The opinions and judgments of sitting or conduct on December 6, 2024 were the majority of blocks responding to the exclusion of chair J. Fonati Coffa. 2025.
The petitioner accuses justice of exceeding his authority and calls for a re-meeting to correct perceived errors. The petition raises concerns about separation of power and weakening of judicial independence, highlighting the potential impact on Liberian governance.
Rearming request submitted by CLLR. The petitioner, Sherman and Valny Sherman of the Sherman Law Firm, argues that the High Court ignored these fundamental principles of constitutional governance and instead tried to rob Parliament and take powers and authorities by the Constitution.
They also condemned their own justice for knowing that their own judicialists were authorized by informants through an unconstitutional and unlawful process, or should know, or should know.
In their opinion, the judge concluded that the majority bloc is an unconstitutional assembly of members of the House of Representatives, and that all actions they took by not serving by Coffa, the chairman of the House of Representatives, were unconstitutional and pale in the law.
“The whole budget process is then unconstitutional and invalid, and the payments and settlements of obligations paid to all employees of the Liberian government and to all those who have provided property to the Liberian government and sold the property are also illegal, illegal, null and invalid, and these payments and settlements will be requested by the Liberian government.
The petition states that, contrary to the separation of the doctrine of power, excessive succession of justice and blatantly unconstitutional reasoning in the interior affairs of the House of Representatives and blatantly unconstitutional reasoning could potentially disrupt the rule of the Republic of Liberia and the Republic of Liberia within a few days.
They further argued that the fundamental principles of jurisprudence should only enter judgments that the court can enforce.
“It is a judgment, and it is tantamount to being incapable of being an invalid judgment,” the petitioner emphasized.
They argue that the judicial authorities have admitted that there is no mechanism to force them to sit under the small gavee river in Hong. Kofa, as Speaker of the House.
Additionally, the petitioner’s references suggest inaccuracies in the court’s decision if a reassembly is granted to correct the error.
Considering examples of cases in which the Supreme Court recalls their opinion through a petition for a re-assembly, the petitioner was Harris et al. v. Layweahet al. , 39 LLR 571, in this case they argued that the Supreme Court held that the mandate cannot be interpreted or clarified by the Information Bill. The proper procedure is to move the Supreme Court for a re-meeting.
In another case, Cavalla Rubber Corporationv. TheLiberian Trading and Development Bank, 38 LLR 153 stated that the Supreme Court held that the principles are important regarding the accuracy of the decision and that re-arming is permitted if serious doubt exists and the case is significant.
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.
“This is another way to argue for the inaccuracies of justice that prepared the Supreme Court opinion,” the petitioner emphasized.
According to the petition, some cases rely on information as the authority to eliminate uncertainty from “December 6, 2024” which specifically provides the December 6, 2024 opinion on cases of constitutionality, “The Office of Information Bill is not to remove uncertainty in previous court opinions, as provided by Part IX of the Supreme Court’s Rules.”
Harris et al. v. Layweahet al. , 39 LLR 571, “The Supreme Court has held that the information bill cannot interpret or clarify its duties. The appropriate procedure is to move the Supreme Court for a re-meeting.”
In another case, Cavalla Rubber Corporationv. TheLiberian Trading and Development Bank 38 LLR 153, the Supreme Court held that principles are important regarding the accuracy of the decision, and that re-massing is permitted in cases of serious doubt and in cases of correct error. This is another way to argue for the inaccuracies of justice that prepared the Supreme Court opinion.
“What’s very important is that your reliance on your opinion of honor in the proceedings of honor is reliant as an authority to remove uncertainty from the opinions of December 6, 2024 and December 6, 2024 in the case of honor.
