Zolu Jallah defends Supreme Court’s role in constitutional oversight, countering LNBA’s claim of political immunity for legislative actions.
MONROVIA – Former President Pro Tempore of the Liberian Senate, Atty. Armah Zolu Jallah, has issued a detailed counter-opinion to the recent position taken by the Liberia National Bar Association (LNBA) concerning the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case involving House Speaker Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa. In a legal analysis dated April 29, 2025, Jallah raised strong constitutional arguments defending the Supreme Court’s intervention, challenging the LNBA’s assertion that the matter is strictly political and outside the Court’s jurisdiction.
According to Jallah, the LNBA’s emphasis on the doctrine of separation of powers fails to recognize the critical role of judicial oversight in a constitutional democracy. “If the legislative actions are deemed unconstitutional or illegal, it is within the Supreme Court’s mandate to intervene,” he stated, warning that the alternative, judicial silence, could enable unchecked legislative overreach and erode the rule of law.
Jallah noted that the judiciary’s responsibility goes beyond resolving private legal disputes to include safeguarding the Constitution. He argued that political matters, especially those rooted in constitutional interpretation or legislative conduct, fall squarely within the judiciary’s purview when legal principles are implicated. “The separation of powers does not mean that one branch is beyond scrutiny,” he wrote, “but rather that all three must operate within constitutional limits, with appropriate checks and balances.”
Addressing the LNBA’s criticism of an alleged contradiction in the Supreme Court’s ruling, which declared the legislative sitting illegal yet upheld the validity of the budget passed during that session, Jallah defended the Court’s reasoning. He suggested that the decision may have reflected a careful balancing act aimed at avoiding governmental paralysis. “Judicial decisions often aim for practical outcomes,” Jallah explained, noting that nullifying the entire national budget could have led to institutional breakdown and harm to the public interest.
Jallah further emphasized that courts around the world have historically intervened in legislative affairs when constitutional procedures or citizen rights were at risk. He cited this as precedent for the Supreme Court’s role in ensuring that all branches of government remain within the bounds of the law, even in politically sensitive matters.
In conclusion, Atty. Jallah reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s authority to review legislative actions, particularly when constitutional compliance is questioned. He acknowledged the LNBA’s concerns about protecting political independence but stressed that such concerns must not overshadow the judiciary’s responsibility to maintain legal order and constitutional fidelity. “The Court’s ruling,” he stated, “can be justified on the grounds of maintaining legal integrity and upholding constitutional principles.”
