MONROVIA – In a detailed commentary titled “President Joseph Boakai Presents Budget to Chief Clerk – Lawful, Correct, and the Practice,” former Representative Worlea Saywah Dunah of Nimba County District #7 offers a compelling defense of President Joseph Boakai’s decision to present the 2025 draft national budget to the Chief Clerk instead of Speaker J. Fonati Koffa. Dunah asserts that this move is firmly grounded in both parliamentary rules and constitutional mandates, emphasizing the authority of the Chief Clerk and the precedence of the Article 33 quorum over symbolic leadership.
Dunah highlights the legal and procedural roles of the Chief Clerk as outlined in Rule 25 of the House of Representatives’ Standing Rules. “Rule 25.3 and 25.9 explicitly state that the Chief Clerk is the custodian of records and receives communications, bills, and other official documents. This establishes the Chief Clerk as a central figure in ensuring legislative continuity,” Dunah writes. He adds that on the first day of legislative sittings, it is the Chief Clerk, not the Speaker, who presides, receives election certificates, administers oaths, and oversees the election of the Speaker, underscoring the Clerk’s authority as a “Presiding Officer” during key moments.
Dunah argues that the term Presiding Officer should not be conflated solely with the Speaker, explaining that its application depends on context. “Every representative knows that on the first day of sitting, the Chief Clerk is the Presiding Officer,” he states, noting that this role aligns with fulfilling the Article 33 quorum, which defines the legitimacy of the plenary, not the Speaker’s symbolic gavel.
Central to Dunah’s argument is the assertion that the Speaker’s authority derives from their ability to harness the Article 33 quorum, which mandates a majority of representatives to conduct legislative business. Failure to maintain this majority, Dunah contends, renders the Speaker ineffective.
“The Speaker’s job is to have and hold a majority to do the people’s business. Without the Article 33 quorum, the Speaker is not working, and their inability to garner support signifies a fundamental incapacity,” Dunah asserts. Drawing parallels with parliamentary practices in countries like the United Kingdom and Canada, Dunah explains that legislative leaders who lose the majority typically resign to preserve institutional integrity.
Dunah recalls instances where legislative functions continued in the Speaker’s absence, supported solely by the Article 33 quorum. “Historically, representatives like Hon. Blamo Wesseh and Hon. Murray presided over sessions and passed bills into law without the Speaker present. In 2007, Rep. Murray presided over a joint session and received the State of the Nation Address from the President in the absence of the Speaker,” Dunah notes.
These precedents, according to Dunah, affirm that the legitimacy of legislative actions rests on the quorum, not the physical presence or symbolic authority of the Speaker. “The power is in the ability to garner, harness, and coordinate the majority, not the wooden gavel. When a Speaker fails to do this, it is time to step aside,” he writes.
Dunah concludes by defending President Boakai’s decision to submit the budget to the Chief Clerk amidst the ongoing leadership crisis in the House of Representatives. He argues that the move ensures government functionality while adhering to legislative norms.
“The President acted within the law and in accordance with parliamentary practice. The Chief Clerk’s role is foundational to the legislative process, especially in times of crisis. The Speaker’s failure to maintain a majority renders their position ineffective, and the people’s business must continue,” Dunah asserts.
In a pointed remark, Dunah alludes to the inevitability of leadership transitions in the face of lost confidence. “Every gambler must know when the game is over,” he concludes, signaling the need for legislative leaders to recognize when their authority has waned and to step aside for the greater good.
