Disputed Dates Take Center Stage in Kolubah’s Fight Against House Expulsion

Monrovia, Liberia: Conflicting accounts of when the House of Representatives expelled Yekeh Y. Kolubah dominated Supreme Court arguments Thursday, as the former Montserrado County District #10 lawmaker continued his legal fight over his removal from office.

The disagreement concerns whether the House acted before or after a Supreme Court directive ordering it to suspend proceedings against him. Following questions from the bench and arguments from both sides, the Court reserved its ruling without announcing a date for its decision.

Counsel for the House, Cllr. Bob Larway, told the justices that Kolubah’s expulsion occurred on April 15, a day before the court communication was served.

That account drew a challenge from Associate Justice Jamesetta H. Wolokolie, who pointed to records showing that the court issued its order on April 16 and the House expelled Kolubah on April 17.

The difference is central to Kolubah’s complaint. His lawyers maintain that lawmakers went ahead with his removal while under instructions to halt the process.

Larway did not resolve the discrepancy in the dates before Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay Sr. asked him to take his seat.

For Kolubah’s legal team, the dispute also concerns how the court order reached the Legislature and whether its delivery required the House to stop.

Cllr. Jonathan Massaquoi argued that the communication had been delivered to the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms through the proper procedures. He maintained that the subsequent expulsion violated the court’s directive and denied his client due process.

During the exchange, Chief Justice Gbeisay questioned whether the order had been read to the Speaker.

The arguments returned the Court to a procedural issue that has shaped the case for months: who received the judicial communication and whether that receipt amounted to lawful service on the House.

In May, Associate Justice Yussif D. Kaba ruled against Kolubah’s effort to hold the House responsible for violating the directive, finding that lawmakers had not been properly served. FrontPageAfrica reported that the documents were received by staff in the Speaker’s and Chief Clerk’s offices, rather than the official authorized to accept court papers.

Massaquoi challenged that decision before the full bench. The matter heard Thursday was listed as an appeal from a ruling on a Bill of Information.

Kolubah’s removal followed a disciplinary complaint over remarks attributed to him concerning the Liberia-Guinea border dispute. Lawmakers pursuing the complaint accused him of misconduct and violating his oath of office.

Montserrado County District #3 Representative Sumo Mulbah formally sought his expulsion on April 9. The House referred the allegations to its Committee on Rules, Order and Administration.

The committee hearing broke down after Kolubah’s lawyers sought more time, access to the evidence against him and the relevant House rules. The committee refused the request, and the defense team withdrew from the proceedings.

The two sides have since offered opposing explanations of that breakdown. The House says Kolubah abandoned an opportunity to defend himself. His lawyers say they could not properly answer the charges without the materials and preparation time they requested.

As the disciplinary process continued, Kolubah turned to the Supreme Court. Justice Kaba’s April 16 directive called House leaders to a conference scheduled for April 20 and instructed them to suspend further action pending that meeting.

The expulsion followed on April 17, with 49 lawmakers supporting the resolution, according to contemporary reporting.

The House Clerk’s Office disputed receiving any instruction to stop. Deputy Chief Clerk Tuah Woods said at the time that she had seen no such communication from the Court. That denial became a major point in the legal battle that followed.

Under Article 38 of Liberia’s Constitution, either chamber of the Legislature may expel a member for cause with the concurrence of two-thirds of its entire membership. The same article requires legislative rules to meet constitutional standards of due process. 

Thursday’s hearing produced no final finding on whether the House violated the stay order or Kolubah’s rights. Those questions remain unresolved as the parties await the Supreme Court’s ruling.