Judge George W. Smith of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Civil Law Court has quashed the application for declaratory judgement filed by embattled Speaker of the House of Representatives J. Fonati Koffa based on the constitutionality of the matter before the court.
Judge Smith ruled on Monday, January 27, 2025, denying the motion for Declaratory Judgment with costs against the embattled speaker and his men.
The Judge at the same time granted the motion to dismiss the petition for Declaratory Judgment filed by Rep. Richard Nagbe Koon of the Majority Bloc lawmakers.
He says even assuming that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter, which is not the case, would a rendition of the declaratory judgment terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the petition for Declaratory Judgment?
Judge Smith thinks the answer is no; and “refuses to render or enter a declaratory judgment where such judgment, if rendered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to” the proceedings. He relies on Section 43.5 “Declaratory Judgment to terminate controversy.”
Judge Smith adjudged on three issues, “Whether the writ of summons for the petition for Declaratory Judgment was issued based on a judge’s order; and if not, whether the failure to have the writ of summons issued based on judge’s order is sufficient ground to dismiss the petition for declaratory judgment?
Judge Smith, speaking on the first issue regarding the absence of a Judge’s Order to support the issuance of the Writ of Summons, says that its file carries both Written Directions and Judge’s Order as to the basis for the issuance of the writ of summons and copy of the judge’s order was attached to the resistance.
“This court says that assuming that the basis for issuance of a writ summons in the declaratory judgment matter was only written directions, that is a procedural technicality, which is insufficient to cause a dismissal of the petition for declaratory judgment when the petition for declaratory was served and returns to it was filed and served,” the judge said.
For these reasons, according to him, the court overrules the plea of the motion to dismiss, that the petition for declaratory judgment should be summarily dismissed because the writ of summons was issued on the basis of written directions instead of Judge’s order.
Speaking on the second issues, whether in the face of the Supreme Court’s Opinion and judgment in the matter entitled: “The Constitutionality of certain actions taken by some members of the House of Representatives of the 55th Legislature,” this court says it can assume jurisdiction over this petition for Declaratory Judgment and pass on it or whether the Petition for Declaratory Judgment should be summarily dismissed because of that Opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court?
Addressing the second issue, Judge Smith questions whether the Petition for Declaratory Judgment should be summarily dismissed because of the Supreme Court’s Opinion in the matter entitled “The Constitutionality of Certain Actions Taken By Some members of the House of Representatives of the 55th Legislature.” He says that the Civil Law Court first takes judicial notice of the law which says that the power of a court to issue declaratory judgment is discretionary. Civil Procedure Law, Section 43.1 and the lower court recalls that both sides also acknowledged the law in their respective pleadings.
He adds that one of the grounds provided under the law for the dismissal of the case is that the court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.
Citing Civil Procedural Law, Section 11.2, subsection 1(a), the Judge says that “Rep. Richard Koon and his co-respondents (movants herein) aver that the substantive averments of fact and statements of law in the matter the Constitutionality of Certain actions taken by some members of the House of Representatives of the 55th Legislature,” are the same as substantive averments of fact and statements of law of the Petition For Declaratory Judgment, and that the Supreme Court, having disposed of the same issues and pass on them, that will constitute a review of the Supreme Court by a subordinate court, which is not legally permissible.
Judge Smith said on the other hand, Rep. Fonati Koffa and his co-respondents (petitioners in the main Declaratory Judgment proceedings) submitted titles of the two matters which are different and the reliefs sought are different. Therefore, the court may assume jurisdiction over the Petition for Declaratory Judgment and grant the reliefs sought.
Based on the citations of law, “this court says that under no parity of reason does this court have the jurisdiction and authority to review a decision of the Supreme Court, without this judge escaping the pain of contempt,” Judge Smith rules.
Also, as to the third issue on whether the court has jurisdiction to review on the constitutionality and legality of the actions and conduct of members of the House of Representatives during legislative proceedings, the Judge states that the court recalls that Rep. Koon and his co-movants pleaded that they are members of the first Branch of the Liberian Government, only the Supreme Court has the power and authority to determine the constitutionality and legality of their conduct and actions.
According to Judge Smith, Koffa and his co-respondents did not traverse the plea in their resistance and so it is deemed admitted. “More to this, on December 6, 2024, the Supreme Court reiterated this jurisdictional power, and before then, in 2001, the Supreme Court held similarly in the case, Republic V. The Leadership of the Liberia National Bar Association, 40 LLR 635, Syl.”
He says the narrative alone settles the issue that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the constitutionality and legality of the actions and conduct of the Members of the House of Representatives, and grant reliefs as prayed for by Koffa and his men in their Petition for Declaratory Judgment. Only the Supreme Court has that jurisdiction and power.
Judge Smith also rules that the Supreme Court reiterates that a judge of concurrent jurisdiction is without the legal authority, and therefore, cannot review, modify, or interfere with the judgment or judicial acts of his/her colleague; only the Supreme Court has that jurisdiction and authority.
By T.Q. Lula Jaurey
