Supreme Court denied the Bill of Information filed by former Representative Yekeh Kolubah

追加: 2026-05-26

[00:00:24]The problem with this is something Every case Every case To whom?

[00:00:29]Uh the matter The ruling Uh to whom Uh we decide to interpret the ruling.

[00:00:37]So, I cannot definitely tell you the true effect of the ruling.

[00:00:40]I can only tell you the true effect of the ruling on me or on the other but not on all parties.

[00:00:46]>> So, it's about what I mean. The reason I'm saying this is this uh Take for instance there are always remedies available at law. So, if the ruling is is is made in my favor, the next party feeling uh dissatisfied they have a remedy through the due process and so I cannot tell you what exactly in its entirety what the the true effect of the ruling Honorable Kola, do you think you followed due process as the House of Representatives? Did you follow due process from your understanding?

[00:01:15]So, are you expecting If you say you followed due process, then you should expect that this ruling should go in your favor, don't you? No, I did not say immediately that the ruling is not going in my favor. I did not anticipate that.

[00:01:24]Anticipating a ruling going in our favor taking into consideration our due process. But, let me say this to you. I want this court to be impartial. Uh the reason is the matter here is not the issue of due process. You get that right? The matter here is on the issue of service.

[00:01:40]Was service done? Yes or no?

[00:01:43]The determination as whether the issue is the the order of prohibition to prevent action. And in the process of the prohibition uh while the the action was never stopped according to you, they came by here after actually brought a bill of information. The bill of information says that we violated the Supreme Court mandate placed a prohibition because and we are saying to you we never even received the prohibition so we violated the prohibition. So the first is maybe our justice is a chamber mate.

[00:02:19]was never served upon us. So the determining factor of whether we violated the mandate is to be as a brother we received service. But in the service given there was no mandate.

[00:02:31]We do not pass a law and receive it.

[00:02:33]What we think that this will be served upon the House of Assembly is on the basis of the service and the present. So I feel most of our legal question to answer now Mhm. is whether or not the House of Assembly was served. Were you served? Were you served? And we said no, we were never served. How many times have we said to you?

[00:02:51]25 60 square on the matter of service.

[00:02:55]The service procedure chapter 20 square on how to serve one.

[00:03:01]So for us the House is ruled to order to serve us, you must serve it on the Sergeant-at-Arms.

[00:03:08]I we may hear a lawyer that a computer operator was served. We don't know who is this computer operator. We don't know from which office he was served.

[00:03:18]You talked about Sergeant-at-Arms.

[00:03:20]>> asked a question the officer You talked about you talked about Sergeant-at-Arms here.

[00:03:24]Is it Is it No, I answered Sergeant-at-Arms. No longer than that.

[00:03:27]Are you Are you telling me I said the person to serve here our room it is the Sergeant-at-Arms. Okay. Yes. So what becomes of the Chief Clerk? The office of the Chief Clerk does not have a computer analyst in your office. We are trying to say that.

[00:03:41]You are not issuing it for me. I will not allow you. So sir, what becomes What becomes of the >> to you a computer operator it is not a position within the legislature. Computer operator to which office?

[00:03:53]Only court {unquote} return as of Friday on Facebook, I did not see any office attached. It said computer operation to which office? So, so So, that is the question I would call the former So, So, you saw the communication on Facebook?

[00:04:06]You saw the communication on Facebook?

[00:04:07]Yes, I did.

[00:04:08]So, so Yes, I did. So, social media and how do you put them on quarantine people like you?

[00:04:13]We expect today for today ruling.

[00:04:15]We expect ruling in our favor.

[00:04:17]And we expect uh the law to be in our favor today.

[00:04:20]That our action was legal. Our action was consistent with the with the with the with the law contrary to the House of Representatives that is sustaining the What if it is not in your favor? To be honest, actually Yeah, remedies are available. Were you Were you actually served your colleague? I just said Pardon me? Were you actually served the embattled lawmaker? He's not embattled.

[00:04:38]He's a former colleague. Let me say this to you.

[00:04:40]We are no longer in this place. We are not here to go against a colleague of ours or one of ours. No. We are only here to discharge the responsibility imposed on us by virtue of the committee we serve. I will even say that. We are here to discharge the responsibility imposed on us by virtue of the committee we serve.

[00:04:58]So, we are not against any colleague. We are not driving any colleague away, but what I'm saying to you uh parliamentary the the former lawmaker in district number 10 has been expelled and in as soon as possible there will be a communication sent to the National Electoral Commission. When will we be notified about that particular at the Supreme Court? Pardon me? Is it because of what's unfolding here? So, let me say this to you. Let me say to you. Let me say this to you. How do I serve the communication when the the three separate branches of government calling for coordination? You expect me to serve the communication when you come and criticize us and say they are defined into the We are defined by the many of the courts. Is it because of the court order? If we do not have regard for the court, we would not come here. But, our presence here that means in conformity.

[00:05:45]We are in conformity of the law.

[00:05:48]When do When do we ask for the communication? You said the sergeant of arms should be responsible for receipt of communication at the house of the legislature. So, what if it is established in the ruling that yes, indeed the communication was served but through the office of the chief clerk. What what becomes of the house?

[00:06:07]I don't want to speak like you.

[00:06:10]Sorry to say that. It is better we address the issue legally. There's a legal question here. You are speaking Let me lay down. Let me listen to you.

[00:06:18]You are speaking from a hypothetical situation and we are not come to to condone hypothetical cases. It is a legal question that is presented whether or not the house of representative was served. Yes or no. If it is yes, then what was the manner and form which the house was served that constituted that yes. If the answer is no, what is the form and manner and form in which the house is to be served? And get this clear. The sergeant at arms is not only for writ or precept from the courts. Under 26.5, it is clear the sergeant at arms receive all directory, all communications, all precepts. And also not only receive receive and take it to the what? Chief Clerk. The sergeant at arms also have the responsibility to receive to to receive from the office of the chief clerk for dispatchment in any offices in meeting of children living in brother of this country. Let me say this to you.

[00:07:21]James Kola is the chairman on rules, order and administration.

[00:07:28]The house of representative served his boss at the time and that communication was delivered by the sergeant at arms, may his soul rest in peace, John E.

[00:07:37]Johnson.

[00:07:38]James Kola uh making his The sergeant and receive from the chief clerk and dispatch. THE SERGEANT AND RECEIVE from outside and take it to the chief clerk to be taken ON WHAT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE OTHERS ARE SPEAKING OF. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

[00:08:05]DOING the the the settings of the House of Representatives when you get out of the state. Uh, we within here the speaker asking the chief clerk whether there was any communication received from the what brought about So, yeah, it is unfortunate you were not in hearing.

[00:08:18]>> I was I I was there in You were in you were in 200 hearing? Doing the the the I said it is unfortunate you were not in a in a in a justice hearing.

[00:08:26]There's this maxim in law.

[00:08:29]What is not what is not pleaded is not part of the case. Therefore, you see, THE REASON WHY YOU TAKE your pleading and give it to the adversary lawyer for a respond is to prepare themself. So, what you did not put in your pleading, you cannot argue it. So, if uh if our Collabo, the former lawmaker lawyers wanted to argue that, they could have embedded that into THAT PLEADING.

[00:08:52]BUT, IT WAS NEVER A MATTER INTO THAT PLEADING. IT WAS ON THE DAY OF THE ARGUMENT when they argue and this is maxim says what is not pleaded is not argued. If you wanted to argue it, you should have put it there. But, let me say this to you. Uh it's almost time and I have to go. I have to be in there.

[00:09:05]But, let me say this to you.

[00:09:07]Uh My my my friend and brother, my own nephew, I think he's for his case.

[00:09:13]I say he's for the case because if I were him, who been in the house, he been there for more than 8 years, Yes, he's in fact tradition, he's my nephew. We talk on a daily day basis.

[00:09:23]Uh I think it was day before yesterday when our Collabo and I we spoke. WE ARE NOT ENEMIES. I JUST SAID TO YOU YOU CALL HIM MOVING. Pardon me? You call him that he was moving. Pardon me? You call him?

[00:09:32]I call him. He call me. Even if I were to call him, he'll take my call. Let me say this to you. Uh you listen to him.

[00:09:37]People that he do you hear my name there? I'm blown WITH CHAINS. I'M FAIR TO HIM. THERE WERE ISSUES I SPOKE TO HIM ON A BROTHER ADVICE. AND WHEN HE TOLD ME I LEFT WITH HIM. BUT I'M SAYING TO YOU I'm discharging my responsibility imposed ON ME BY STATUTE. THIS IS NOT A JAMES who do his own thing. It is on the BASIS OF THE LAW THAT I'M ACTING.

[00:09:58]PARDON ME? Did you vote against him? I think that question cannot be answered by me. Because it speaks in volume. I'm the one who prepared the report. And you saw the report. Didn't tell me did you vote? How do we ascertain the violation?

[00:10:11]Pardon me? I do not work National Elections Commission.

[00:10:13]That question is supposed to be posed to NEC, not me.

[00:10:19]Pardon me?

[00:10:21]I just said to you we have a statutory period of time. Since the expulsion of Kolubah has exceeded 30 days. He alleged that Has it reached 30 days? So, you the journalists got to do your own research.

[00:10:31]You leave You leave all the news media.

[00:10:33]You put it at All right, folks. That is uh James Kolubah. He is the uh chairman on rules, order, and administration at the House of Representatives. That is just few feet away from the grounds of the Temple of Justice. Uh we've been told that um the ruling from the justice in chamber uh his honor, Justice Yusuf Kaba, was to begin at 3:00 p.m.

[00:11:18]Uh but it was again pushed, we've been told, to half past the hour. It's almost um 20 minutes uh to 4:00 p.m. We are still awaiting all parties to make their way into whether or not the justices chamber or the law library of the Supreme Court of Liberia. Please do let us know the quality of the audio. You listen to Jean Koulaire.

[00:11:44]They're speaking that he's confident, quite confident that the ruling will definitely be in their favor. By in their favor, he's talking about the House of Representatives by in through its leadership. This is a serious case.

[00:12:01]Representative Kolubah is expelled according to the House of Representatives. The Bong County lawmaker was kind of corny about the question when I asked him whether or not the reason the announcement of a vacancy hasn't been sent to the National Elections Commission whether it's because of what's happening here at the Supreme Court. He kind of threw a curveball answer and said all three branches of government must coordinate.

[00:12:26]But what he's been pressing on Nelson is the fact that the House of Representatives, in his word, in in his omission, did not at any point receive a communication from the Supreme Court of Liberia putting a prohibition on the expulsion proceedings of Representative Yekeh Kolubah. According to him, a computer clerk cannot receive a communication that should have been received by the by the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives. Nelson, good to have you on.

[00:12:58]Well, thanks a lot, Diamond, and many thanks to all of our folks. And Diamond, this is where we are. And and and this this is not strange, especially the position of Representative Koulaire relative to the situation at hand.

[00:13:13]This is where a lot of people are coming from when they get to ask the critical question as to what happens even if the court is to rule today in favor of Yekeh Kolubah, whether the House in the first place is going to um adhere to that ruling from the court. You know, this is the background of lots of questions that so many people have been asking.

[00:13:38]But, this is where we are.

[00:13:39]Representative Kolubah has reiterated this is the very position that the house had from the onset of this entire case. And by that, the house is maintaining that everything that was done was legal because there was absolutely no communication from the court uh putting a stay order or a halt on the entire proceeding. So, if there was no communication from the court or the house, they didn't get to receive a communication, then it means that there was absolutely no reason why the House of Representative had to you know halt or put us a hold on the hearing that we saw that that led to the expulsion of Representative Yekeh Kolubah. But, this is a landmark case and we are looking forward to seeing the kind of precedent that the Supreme Court of Liberia is going to set in in this very important case.

[00:14:29]We have been repeatedly of recent Nelson using the word landmark [snorts] landmark landmark. We did that. We used that word repeatedly doing the verdict of former Finance Minister Samuel Tweah. That was also a landmark case. Now, we have had the expulsion of a lawmaker represented of former representative according to the House of Representatives referring to him as a former representative Yekeh Kolubah.

[00:14:58]So, Nelson is going to um do a quick adjustment. All right. So, yeah.

[00:15:07]Thank you.

[00:15:10]>> [laughter] [laughter] >> So, we're good now. I think we're good to go.

[00:15:18]Pardon me, but you know when you when you partner with Nelson, a gadget freak like Nelson is, you have to be on your toes and the man just took me off my entire wing.

[00:15:27]>> [laughter] >> Wait, let me get let me get the stick microphone. Uh but back to the issue Mr. Cole who's been using the word landmark landmark landmark somewhat towards verdict. Now we know that criminal court CRS opened an investigation into alleged juror tampering but that's an issue for another day. But let's look at what James Cole is pushing in terms of his legal and basic knowledge. He's saying the sergeant-at-arms should have received the communication.

[00:15:58]The other side is arguing that the computer analyst received the communication works at the House of Representatives is an official officer of the House of Representatives sign on the returns and should have served it to whomever it is that should have gotten it. His argument is it didn't get to the sergeant-at-arms but the other side's argument is this is an officer of the the legislature that was served received this communication. That is the House of Representatives receiving the communication and through its administrative arm and should have been given to the appropriate person. How is that our issue? Does does that does this argument hold any sort of any kind of leeway any kind of water in in in these proceedings today Nelson? We'll be waiting for the ruling and once we it's all started we'll go to the Supreme Court but from what he said does it suffice?

[00:16:50]Well well well Diamond I'm I'm looking at it from different angles here.

[00:16:54]My first concern especially with the position that the House has consistently held on to from the very start of this case my very first concern is the procedure. What exactly is the procedure like?

[00:17:11]It's often said that anything that is not done right is not done at all. All right, so >> [clears throat] >> this is where maybe we're going to go a bit further to know exactly what the procedure is at this the director of communications here from the house and we're going to get him to come as well wrap our heads. But if the procedure is that the the clerk is the Is is that a sergeant at arms?

[00:17:37]Yeah, the sergeant at arms is the person responsible to receive official communications and the communication did not go to the sergeant at arms but rather to a computer analyst then there's a problem with respect to the procedure and and I know from the layman understanding we may say okay, so once the computer analyst received the communication that computer analyst then should have forwarded the communication to whoever should have received it since it's in fact in the the same institution and all of that. But it still remains a concern and the house being a political theater Diamond as you know, will look at things from not just the legal aspect not just the the procedural you know angle not just the way it's supposed to be done but they'll also get to look at things from the political aspect as well especially that >> Do you think do you think that was played?

[00:18:32]That's what it appears to be.

[00:18:34]>> Do you think that that was a properly planned plot that was carried out that look get this and we'll see later on it didn't follow the right channel so we couldn't honor it and didn't see it.

[00:18:45]Well I can't uprightly say that Diamond because I don't want to be on someone to provide proof or pieces of evidence as to my statement but it's possible it's possible it's very possible that this could be played out.

[00:19:01]It is also very possible Diamond that the the the house could be doing all of what we see in the filibustering because Um, think that um, there was an error on the part of the party that should have served the communication from the from from the angle of the court and and maybe capitalizing on that error now, the house could say, well, uh, the fact that it didn't come to um, the individual designated to receive these kinds of communication, well, then we didn't receive it. So, um, and I think at this point even the court, the court should be um, maybe letting the public know, you know, as to um, what it's like, um, you know, the communication. When was there a return copy? Usually when these communications >> Yeah, yeah, there was a return that was signed. There was a return signed. Who signed the return? Well, the computer analyst. Um, what does the court knows about What does the court know about um, these processes, you know, and and all of these different issues? I mean, I think we have to start looking into it, but the house will always be the house.

[00:20:05]That's the biggest political theater we have in the country. And when you're interacting with that body, you got to make sure that you cross all the Ts and dot the Is because just a single a single misstep on your part could be capitalized upon and then be next [clears throat] thing you know is that your objective is not achieved. So, uh, that's a very crucial aspect of this whole thing, the the the the the communication thing and whether it was received. And I think that um, part of the reason why even the legislature, Representative Cole for example, who is the chair on rules, order, and administration, and other officials in the house are saying that they didn't receive this communication is to smartly dodge this whole conversation about due process.

[00:20:47]>> Due process and maybe the house disrespecting the court. That remember this communication also contained um, there was an aspect of this communication where it's talking about the process to be put on hold while the parties come to a conference. And and and and I think you remember that aspect of the communication. So, if the house agrees that the communication was received, then the next concern would be, "Oh, you received >> you Why Why didn't you respect the court by staying the process?"

[00:21:15]>> Yeah, you disrespected the court. So, I see it from the point where the house is trying to avoid that whole conversation.

[00:21:20]So, before even getting to the conversation of how the house disrespected the court, first and foremost, we didn't receive the communication. Did they address the communication to the person designated to receive it? No. Okay, so That's why I asked you the question. Whether again, that was a smart plot. That was a smart play. Remember these These These government institutions, they they work, you know, in unisons. There's checks and balance, but there is also, you know, cooperation between these branches. What I'm saying this to say is that people have people in branches of government.

[00:21:53]Do you think somebody hinted and said, "Look, there is a writ of prohibition coming, a stay order is coming for you guys." So, Sergeant-at-Arms disappeared, Chief Clerk disappeared, and then somebody who, according to the chairman of Rules, Order, and Administration, is not clothed with the authority to have received the communication, did receive the communication, and now they're saying, "Look, we didn't get it because it didn't follow the process." But remember, Nelson, just before I get back to you quickly, folks. Yakubu from the House's perspective, the former representative of District number 10, is no stranger to winning here at the Supreme Court. Remember, he he also won a case here in in 2021. I'm trying to get the right date. He did win a case here in 2021 when he was suspended, and the the due process wasn't followed according to the Supreme Court's ruling.

[00:22:44]The due process wasn't followed, and subsequently, he the the court ordered that the house pay him retroactively for, you know, salaries and benefits >> Yeah, he didn't receive Yeah, he did not receive. So, he has won bringing the House of Representatives to the Supreme Court, but this is a totally different thing we're talking about here, and it's got a lot of implications as well. Um let's go back to you as you are making your point. Yeah, so uh uh Diamond, um I'm talking about the process, um the procedure and how this whole thing uh could possibly uh could possibly play out. Um I just uh we're we're getting information, Diamond, that uh Representative Yekeh Kolubah is currently at the airport. He's on his way to Ghana.

[00:23:28]Um um that's that's information we're getting from the very highly placed source that Representative Yekeh Kolubah is currently at the airport. He's on his way to Ghana. And so, if that information is true, then it means that we're not going to see the District 10 representative here uh today, especially so when um the the the there's lot of expectation with regards to seeing him here. Okay. Uh thank you, Nelson. Let me just bring a quick update quickly. So, from our sources within the Supreme Court of Liberia, that is what we will be doing. We'll be giving you real-time updates as it unfolds. So, what we can tell you is the the ruling is about to begin.

[00:24:06]Uh Honorable the Honor Yusuf Kaba, Justice Yusuf Kaba, is about to start the reading of the ruling. Remember, this is a bill of information ruling.

[00:24:18]Um so, he's going to start that. What we can tell you also is Counselor Jonathan Massaquoi is the lone lawyer um here for repre- for former Representative Yekeh Kolubah and Counselor Albert Sim and another lawyer present. So, the house is saying, as James Skoleh said, that they did not receive any communication. So, Counselor Morlai Yakulah, one of Yekeh's lawyers, not present. Um Counselor former Associate Justice Kabineh Ja'neh is also not present, one of um Kolubah's lawyers. Um only Counselor Augustine Massaquoi um is currently there in the chambers of the presiding justice. So, the house is saying they did not receive any rate of prohibition. As said by James Quale, the representative out there, the same thing is being said in there. So, they're saying they are relying on rule 25 of the house's rule, which state that the house marshal shall receive all documents before going out.

[00:25:20]So, as stated by James Quale again, the chairman of rules, order, and administration, the house is maintaining its defense that it did not receive any communication because according to the house's rule, rule 25, the marshal of the house, which which happens to be the chief the sergeant-at-arms, should receive all communications and documents on behalf of the house. So, there you have it, Nancy. More updates and you can keep giving your analysis, folks. So, it's live coming up there from the Supreme Court of Liberia. All the justices, we can see their vehicles, but this is before the justice in chamber, Yusuf Kaba.

[00:25:55]Yes, Diamond. And and and this is exactly what we're saying. That I mean, there will be all efforts to bypass that conversation about the the the house disrespecting the court. Remember, these are separate branches of government.

[00:26:11]>> your pardon. Sorry again for the the interruption. So, more updates, folks.

[00:26:15]So, the justice has told the house that the issue here to be solved is whether or not the respondent, that is the House of Representatives, was properly brought under the court's jurisdiction. So, the question now is who makes up the House of Representatives? Is it just elected officials or officials who carry duties on behalf of the house? And if somebody received the communication on behalf of the house, whether or not the house was brought under the court's jurisdiction.

[00:26:42]So, that's what Justice Kaba just told the the lawyers of the House of Representatives that the issue here at hand is whether or not the respondents, being the House of Representatives were brought under the jurisdiction of the court properly. So, now is the issue of whether or not the communication was given to the house and if somebody signed on behalf of the house and the house should have used its own internal channels to get the communication to the Sergeant-at-Arms.

[00:27:12]And and and that's exactly where we are.

[00:27:14]And and and remember these are separate branches of government and at the end of the day they want to be seen as institutions that are coordinating, you know, to carry on their respective functions. No one is interfering with the function of another branch of government, but at the same time they also want to do everything possible to ensure that what they do in the is in the confines of the law. So, we we we're going to see this defense and and and as I stated earlier, Diamond, if the court if there was an error at that particular point where uh with respect to the serving of the communication, um this is just going to undermine the whole conversation about um the court let's say the house disrespecting the court and so forth. And so, this is exactly where we are and um at the end of the day we look forward to seeing what the court is going to say with um the House of Representatives being present here as well Representative James Kolleh and the legal representatives as well. We look forward to seeing what happens, Diamond. Thank you, Nelson. So, folks, if you're just joining us, this is the Spoon Network we're live here from um just in front of the Supreme Court of Liberia. You can see the gigantic building behind us here. It's the Supreme Court of Liberia.

[00:28:32]You can see those black SUVs. They belong to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia. Yeah, we're trying to see if we can get some updates some fresh updates, but what we can tell you is Representative Yakubu the petitioner is not present but he's represented by his lawyers counselor Jonathan Massa at one point in time I did say Augustine I'm sorry it's counselor Jonathan Massa he's there representing the petitioner Moriah the counselor one of the lawyers are there but not present former associate justice cabinet Jana one of the lawyers of representative Kolubah also not present but the fact that one of his lawyers is present meaning the the petitioner is present.

[00:29:16]So the question now that the judge has asked the House of Representatives is that the issue here is whether or not the house was brought under the jurisdiction of the court when that communication was served whether is the chief clerk or a computer analyst or whomever it is that received the communication and the returns were served whether or not the house was brought under the court's jurisdiction.

[00:29:41]So what we can tell you Nelson brought that story is that um Yakub Kolubah the former representative of District number 10 is not present but the process is ongoing. Yeah definitely and diamond respect to the whole conversation about whether the house was brought under the jurisdiction of the court properly that is going to be a sticky issue the court we've always said that under our own jurisprudence the bread burden of proof lies upon the the accuser. Just one minute again Nelson I'm sorry but I'll have to keep doing this to you as we get in updates. So more updates from the chambers of the presiding justice now at the honorable Supreme Court the court quoted a ruling that the justice in chamber quoted that a judicial returns from a sheriff is highly respected so the court is saying that it did get a returns and that returns is highly respected. Now the issue is where the citation was properly whether the citation was properly issued that is now the issue whether the citation was properly issued by the judges stating that returns of the court is very much highly respected. So, we'll keep bringing you updates. I'll leave you and Nelson for a while while I'm fishing for updates. And once we get those updates, we'll share with you. So, stick with Nelson for a minute. It's all happening in the chambers of the Supreme Court presiding Justice Yusuf Kabba is the one sitting on this particular matter.

[00:31:13]Well, thanks Amon. And I want to appreciate all of you joining us again this afternoon. Spoon TV, we are posted here live at the grounds of the Supreme Court. And Liberians across the world are watching and waiting eagerly to see what the outcome of this situation, this case is going to be.

[00:31:33]What exactly is the quick court going to say with respect to the situation at hand. But, this is a defining moment for Representative Yekeh Kolubah, for example, because he thought that the process that led to his expulsion by his colleagues at the House of Representatives did not follow the the the the the rules. It was not in line with the law, the Constitution of the Republic of Liberia. It did not conform with the House's rules. And because of those different issues, Representative Yekeh Kolubah decided to run to the Supreme Court where he believes he is going to get justice.

[00:32:13]But, in the face of everything happening now, the Justice in Chambers is now going through this entire situation. The House has maintained that the communication served or issued or that originated from the court was not properly served in fact that they did not receive a copy of the communication. The court sheriff says the sheriff from the court says the communication was served to the computer analyst. A return copy was presented to the court. The court at this point is saying that every single copy let's say a return copy from a sheriff is highly respected by the court. And so by that what the court is saying is that the the owner the current the the return copy in their possession currently the owner that they respect that as an official communication from the House of Representatives whether it was from a computer analyst or from the marshal or from whoever the fact that it was received signed for and there was a return copy from an official of the House of Representatives that indicates that the communication was received. So this is where we are but at the moment we're looking forward to see what the court will say because Representative Yekeh Kolubah have consistently said that in the face of everything that happened his last hope is the the Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia the final arbiter of justice the highest court in the land. He believes that whatever the Supreme Court of Liberia says will be will determine his fate. He believes in the wisdom of the court. He believes that the court has the capacity that the court will be very much impartial in handing down a ruling in this case. But um Representative Yekeh Kolubah is hanging on a single straw at the moment and that straw now happens to be the Supreme Court because at the level of the House of Representatives his colleagues have uh voted for his expulsion.

[00:34:19]Representative Yekeh Kolubah is being referred to by many as former lawmakers of District 10. Even himself have referred to you know have have called himself former a and stuff like that. But he has maintained that the court is going to be the one to determine as to whether he's a former lawmaker, as to whether he's expelled or not, and this is exactly where we are. Demo, I know you have more updates. Definitely, Nelson. Thank you.

[00:34:43]So, what we can tell you folks, we're still live here just before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia. This, as my colleague Nelson Colleague rightly stated, is a landmark case. Though there are still legal remedy available to whichever party feels aggrieved by whatever the ruling, the outcome, or the opinion of the Supreme Court on this matter will be.

[00:35:05]Remember, a bill of information is for the court to interpret, you know, and give its opinion on a subject matter.

[00:35:14]So, now what we can tell you is Representative Kolubah is not present.

[00:35:18]He's not in the country. We've been told he's already at the Roberts International Airport making his way to Ghana or some other location. But, what we can tell you is he's represented by Counselor Jonathan Mason Quay. He's in the chambers of the presiding judge.

[00:35:33]There's also the representative of the House of Reps, the legal representative also present. Remember, it all started when we spoke with James Cole earlier on. He is the House's chairman on rules, order, and administration. All of what James Cole stated out here is the defense of the House of Representatives up there. They stated that according to their rules, rules 35 and 25 of the House's rule, the marshal shall receive all communications coming in and going out of the House of Representatives. The justice in chambers said, "The issue is there was an official returns as whether or not the House of Representatives were brought under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court." He also said, "The issue of their returns is a respected court document, and even the justice in chamber quoted a Supreme Court ruling that returns are respected." The justice also said the issue now is whether or not this citation was properly issued.

[00:36:32]Now in the House of Representatives legal counsel told the judge in chamber that look, the House is saying that the marshal was required to be served and not to serve a computer analyst. Rightly as stated by James Quale, that was their defense that he made here and that is their defense they're making before the justice in chamber that the marshal wasn't served but a computer analyst was served, Nelson Quale.

[00:37:05]For a very long time Diamond, Liberians have not witnessed such a process, especially one that Another another breaking news, what we've been told is that the marshal is in there and the marshal is saying he has no knowledge on the rules as to who is to receive court documents.

[00:37:23]And and this is where it's getting interesting because the marshal is supposed to be the person receiving the communication.

[00:37:30]But when the marshal is saying but but that he doesn't have idea with respect to who's supposed to receive these kinds of communication, then it's getting interesting. But Diamond, another thing that's very important is that the marshals are not obligated to to to be acquainted 100% with the House's rule. Seriously Nelson?

[00:37:53]Even the one that concerns you seriously? So what's your what's the marshal's steel arm?

[00:37:58]Nelson, how can you how can you how can you say that Nelson? What's his steel arm? And I I know you want to make this controversial but I mean, the marshal the marshal is not a representative.

[00:38:07]Nelson, The rules that specifically applies to me, which also counts as my job, my term of reference that I should receive communications going in and going out. I shouldn't know that part Nelson? That's just a set How does the marshal know that he's supposed to swear people in? He's about to swear people out. He's about to do all that kind of I don't even know that one. just a segment of the house's rule.

[00:38:29]Um it's like I mean you have this whole I mean volume. So, let me let me let me get this straight. Let me get this straight. All right. So, it is not the Supreme Court's sergeant at arms.

[00:38:43]It is not the House of Representatives sergeant at arms that says he does not know the process. It is the Supreme Court's marshal that said he does not know the house's process. So, we just want to get that right. So, I just asked for confirmation whether or not the the the House of Representatives marshal or the sergeant at arms is there. But, what I can tell you folks, so let's go back on that information because it's fluid.

[00:39:08]This is fluid information that is flowing in and we need to make the necessary corrections and checkpoints where needed. So, it is it is the court's marshal that said he has no knowledge on who is to receive court documents at the House of Representatives. So, it is the court's marshal who said that he's not abreast with the house's rules as to who is to receive court documents. Um so, that is what we want to make that correction.

[00:39:42]So, instead of serving the sergeant at arms, the marshal allegedly served an unauthorized person. So, again, that is the information coming in. So, we needed to make that particular correction and make sure that the information we're providing is spot on. All right. So, also what updates we're getting is the lawyer of Yekini Koluba failed to direct the sheriff or the marshal as to who is to be served as they understand their rules. So, what they what the House of Representatives saying again is that Yekini's lawyers failed to have directed the marshal whom they were to serve the documents to because he's abreast with the rules of the House of Representatives and the lawyers should have read the rules of the House of Representatives to know whom they were to serve the documents to. So, instead they served the documents to an authorized person. So, the justice again said that for a person to be served on the rules, it has to follow the rightful procedure.

[00:40:43]That is what the justice is saying that for a preset to be served on the house, it should follow the rightful procedure. So, the rightful procedure is to give it to the sergeant-at-arms and the sergeant-at-arms will take it to the leadership of the House of Representatives through the chief clerk.

[00:41:00]So, that is what we are hearing here.

[00:41:01]So, you can you can continue Nelson as I get more updates. Yeah, Diamond.

[00:41:05]You're right and with all of these issues, it is um it is raising more concerns and there there are just so many questions now with respect to what the coordination between these branches of government are. How does it look like? To what extent are these branches of government coordinating? Because we have three separate but coordinate branches of government.

[00:41:26]>> This is another breaking news, Nelson.

[00:41:27]This is another breaking news. So, I step back to have read it properly and ask the right questions. So, the justice has said that for a preset to be served on the house, it should follow the rightful procedure. So, the fact that the marshal didn't know whom to go to and Yekes lawyers didn't direct the marshal as to whom to go to, it means that the presumption that the house was not properly served, the court finds a reason that the house was not properly served. So, the writ of prohibition was not properly served on the house. So, the court cannot be held.

[00:42:01]Diamond, this thing is progressing here gradually bit by bit. Now, what I see here is that the court is trying to So, the breaking news is folks, start updating your status. The bill of information filed by Yekini Kolubah has been denied.

[00:42:17]That bill of information has been denied. The court finds reason that the house was not properly served. So, that bill of information filed by former representative Yekini Kolubah has been denied. So, the court has found reason that the House of Representatives was not properly served because the marshal who said he lacked knowledge and Yekini's lawyers who should have had knowledge as to whom to serve this communication, they did not follow proper channel. But, the breaking news here again, Yekini's lawyers have accepted this ruling from the justice in chambers, but they have said they will perfect an appeal to the full bench of the Supreme Court, which is a remedy that is available to them. If a justice in chambers rules and it doesn't go in your favor, you have the legal remedy of perfecting an appeal to the full bench of the Supreme Court, Nelson.

[00:43:11]And and and this is a breaking news, uh Diamond.

[00:43:14]But, again, um just listening to the ruling now and going back to what uh Representative Yekini Kolubah said last evening on the show, uh makes me want to think that uh probably Representative Yekini Kolubah knew as to what was going to happen.

[00:43:30]Um and because because uh last evening he said uh even if the ruling doesn't go his his way today, um there's a remedy and that they were going to go to the uh take take an appeal to the Supreme Court. And and and he went on to say that in fact, he doesn't have time whatever they say, that's it. He's on his way to Ghana.

[00:43:49]He's going to be leaving. And whatever the ruling is today, um that's fine.

[00:43:53]They have a remedy and they're going to go to the Supreme Court. And um just hours after less than 24 hours hours after he made those comments, we're seeing a ruling here handed down by the justice in chambers today are denying um um um the bill of information filed. So, but uh the um the reason why this is very important is because um I I see a lot of concerns are are drifting towards um why Representative Yakubu as lawyer did not inform um the the the the marshal as to where to appropriately serve this uh uh uh communication. But, aside from that, um maybe we should be asking the question as well as to why Representative Yakubu himself, being a member of the House of Representatives, who is expected to be okay with the the the the house's rule, why didn't he maybe advise or make some sort of input with respect to where this communication should have been served, you know, and and >> that was said by the justice in chambers as I was giving the update. He said that um uh the lawyers of Representative Yakubu should have, you know, uh he has been in the house, he knows the rules, he knows their rules. The court does not know the rules of the House of Representatives.

[00:45:08]The marshal does not know whom it is that he should serve, uh which official of the House of Representatives should he serve the um the the precept to. So, hence that is the problem of Yakubu and his lawyers. That is not the problem of the court. His lawyer should have known and directed the marshal as to whom it is they should have served that communication to. So, based on that, the precept was not properly served because it did not follow the proper channel.

[00:45:39]So, hence the court find probable cause to deny the bill of information filed by Representative Yakubu. Um so, that there is James Kolawole, he's returning.

[00:45:48]Um Honorable Kolawole, as you rightly said, the court has denied the bill of information.

[00:45:55]Sure, and we told you it's not a surprise news for us. We have said it to you over and over. We quoted the rule, we read the rule to you, but some of our colleagues still fail to follow up, still fail to do the research and inform the Liberian people. We are glad that the court has finally uh the the justice in chamber has finally vindicated us.

[00:46:14]Those our fellow actions was contrary to the rule of law. I say to them the ruling is very clear on the issue of service. Service wasn't done. When service is not done properly, the court has repeatedly ruled that you cannot be brought under the jurisdiction of the court. In order to be brought under the the jurisdiction of the court, you must service must be conducted and you heard the ruling. The justice is clear. Even if the speaker is not served in person, the rule is there's no ambiguity in the rule. The rule stated clearly 26.5, it is a sergeant at arms. So, even if you when you serve it on the member of the legislature, you have not yet served the House of Representative until it is served on the sergeant at arms because it is spelled out within the rule.

[00:46:57]>> Why did you use the word vindicated? Did Did this put a serious weight in a as a smell like like on the House of Representative because you used vindicated? Yes, and particularly for some of us who spare who were part of this process, we have received several negative comments from people that we have high degree of regard for and I think that they were doing it on the basis of their personal feeling. Your personal feeling is different from the law. We say to you, "This is what the law says. YOU ARE NOT a member of the legislature. YOU DO NOT HAVE access to the House's rule. You have not read the House's rule. How do you come and debate with a member of the House who understands the House's rule? Who is a custodian of the House's rule?" So, we just say to them we are we are we are happy that we have been vindicated. And I was saying to you earlier before I left that the distinguished honorable did support his case because if I were in his situation, putting me in his shoe, the first thing I would have done was to take a glance at the rule to to to to to to get a copy of the houses rule and understand and peruse it to determine or to guide me in the procedure of service. But, our reason best known to him and the just justice also said that though though the return of the the marshal it is perceived to be correct, yet when challenged it it is proven it cannot be considered correct in this case. You don't just go say computer operator that we are repeated certain. Who is a computer operator? From which office? Not because I'm standing at the judiciary now at the Supreme Court, so it means that I do work with the the Supreme Court. Or it doesn't mean that I'm qualified competent to receive documentations on behalf of the Supreme Court only because you saw me at the Temple of Justice. No, you need to do a little much more research to understand and let me say this to you. This is an opening eye for many of us legislators and even for the general public. Now, it has been stated clear on the manner and form of service.

[00:48:54]So, if someone wanted to serve a service on the House of Representatives or the Senate, we go back to our rule. What the rule says is what you go by. So, I I think Pardon me?

[00:49:05]I will not quote word by word, but 25.6 is clear that in order to serve the House of Representatives precise That's how I first say the the the sergeant at arms is the police is the chief police officer of the House of Representatives. He or she is responsible to receive all communications for the House of Representatives and send it to the office of the chief clerk. And he or she is also responsible to to dispatch all communications. So, if you want me to read word by word, let me read rule 25 just in few seconds you'll be on 25.

[00:49:42]>> So, while Representative Kolawole is trying to read, we're trying to see if we can speak to Counselor Jimoh Moshood as well. He is one of the lawyers of Yakubu Sorry, I'm I'm trying to scroll down quickly.

[00:50:00]So, folks, this is the breaking news.

[00:50:02]The Justice in Chamber of the House of the Supreme Court of Liberia has denied the bill of information filed by Honorable Yekeh Kolubah, former representative of District number 10.

[00:50:14]The judge has stated that the the service wasn't properly Honorable Yekeh Kolubah was not expelled for making public statement, for his public utterances, please.

[00:50:28]He went against the House's rule to to be a Liberian tax to be paid by Liberian taxpayer to TAKE OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF LIBERIA.

[00:50:41]TO TAKE OATH TO DEFEND THE TERRITORY BRANCH OF LIBERIA, to go and make such a statement, we thought that it was not only against Yekeh, but it was also against the House's rule. We we gave rule for the 8.1, for the 8.2. It was desecrating the House of Representative. It is the responsibility of every member AT ALL TIMES TO PROTECT THE SANCTITY, the integrity, the prestige of the House of Representative. So, I don't want the public believing that because he has always spoken in a manner form best known to him, this is why he was expelled for. Was it Was it Was it a perfect opportunity?

[00:51:20]Well, I don't know what is considered as a perfect opportunity, but I'll say to you, like I said earlier, I'm here discharging my own responsibility as chair person on rule, orders, and administration. I'm not Pardon me?

[00:51:33]The president he has said Honorable James Kolleh speaking lengthily there. We want to speak to the lone defense lawyer of Representative Kolubah, who was in the Chamber of the Supreme Court of Liberia, counselor Jonathan Massaquoi.

[00:51:52]Good afternoon to you, counselor Massaquoi. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. What's the What's the petitioners' position on the ruling by the justice in chambers?

[00:52:01]Well, the bill of information was denied by the chief justice.

[00:52:05]And we took exception to the ruling of the chief justice and the Supreme Court.

[00:52:10]And we announced an appeal to the Supreme Court.

[00:52:12]And as a matter of law, as an operation of law, appeal serves as a stay.

[00:52:17]So, the full bench will have to look at this matter.

[00:52:19]That's where we are. So, as it stands, you said an appeal serves as a stay. So, meaning any further action of the the House of Representatives cannot be carried out until the full bench of the Supreme Court of Liberia renders an opinion on this matter. That That is the That is the interpretation. That is the construction of the law, right? The Once the matter is served Once the matter have been appealed to the full bench, the lower house cannot take no action because the matter is still before the Supreme Court. Now, this time around, it is before the full bench. So, until the full bench can listen to this matter and make a determination, nothing can be done. They just said, "Even though the returns shows that it was properly, you know, served, but it cannot it can be challenged for not following the procedures. And you as lawyers of the respondent should have in in in collaboration with the respondent know the rules of the house as to whom to serve. Do you think you followed the procedures or you did not as said by the by the judge?" And so, that is the reason why we took exception to the chief justice ruling. We disagree with the ruling, right? It is not our responsibility to to serve precepts on another branch of government, but rather that is the responsibility of the office of the marshal, right? This body, this branch of government have been involved in cases where they have served precepts on that branch of government. And if they have done it properly, why this time around they didn't do it properly, assuming that that was the case?

[00:53:39]>> So, you're saying that the marshal should have done the work and not you.

[00:53:43]Well, we took exception to whatever because the the house, the lower house, I mean the house there may have reason to know that there was an order from this court. Evidenced by the fact that the the speaker on the day of the hearing even asked the clerk, you serve as a witness, you serve as a testament to that. And so, they once they have reason to know that there was an order from this court, they shouldn't have proceeded. By any case, we have announced an appeal appeal serve as a as a matter of stay to the entire proceeding. So, what exactly did you pray for? We pray that the the the the the legislature be held in contempt of court, right? And that they respond to the prohibition because they were they were they were served properly in our own opinion. And that's And that's what we maintain. Okay. Thank you, counselor.

[00:54:27]Counselor Jonathan Massaquer the lone legal representative of the former District number 10 lawmaker Yekeh Kolubah saying that yes, they have accepted the ruling but with an exception. They are going to the full bench of the Supreme Court of Liberia to hold the House of Representatives in contempt for not following and honoring the rate of prohibition that was served according to him. The fact that the speaker Richard Koon even stated that they they were aware of a rate of prohibition or not, that speaks to the fact that they knew that they had been served. By the end of the day, what the breaking news here is that the Justice in Chamber Justice Yusuf Kabba has denied the bill of information prayed for by Honorable Yekeh Kolubah and his legal counsel on grounds that it wasn't served properly. That service wasn't done properly, Nelson. But the the respondent's lawyers have um petitioner's lawyers have said that it is not their responsibility. The marshal has served communications on the House of Representatives prior, like I told you, in 2019. Yekeh Kolubah was suspended. In 2020, again, he came to the Supreme Court of Liberia. He did pray to the Supreme Court of Liberia, and the court said that due process wasn't followed. Um so, his lawyer is saying that the marshal is not a first-timer, that the court should have known whom it is they should serve a communication to at of Representatives, and it's not the responsibility of his lawyers, as stated by the judge, and hence they have filed an appeal to the full bench of the Supreme Court. Um we want to see if we can talk to Melvin. Um whether or not he wants to give his say.

[00:56:19]He is our judicial correspondent. Um Melvin, you listened to the ruling. You were somewhere close by.

[00:56:26]Um what transpired?

[00:56:28]Uh so, you, like we I was sending the the daily updates to you, Damo. The Justice in Chamber made it clear that uh according to the rules, 26.5 of the House's rules, uh only the Sergeant at Arms is clothed with the responsibility to receive documents from any other place and know that it's all directed to the Speaker or the leadership of the House. But the marshal uh failure to have presented to a computer analyst uh make uh Yekeh Kolubah a former Representative Yekeh Kolubah uh to uh you know, lose this battle at the level of the Justice in Chamber. So, he said uh the the the the service was not, you know, uh uh uh served properly. So, for that reasons, uh the court cannot, you know, uh hold the House in contempt of court, and that the bill of informations and the contempt charge as prayed for is hereby denied, you know, uh by the court. But on his uh side, the lawyers representing uh uh uh uh Yekeh, uh because I just turned General Manager, he was the lone person there. He took an appeal to the full bench uh of the the of the House, you know, uh for uh for for for revision of, you know, the Justice in chambers ruling. Thank you. Thank you. That's expertly stated by Melvin Jackson. So folks, this is how we wrap up here from just before the Temple of Justice of the uh of of Liberia where the Supreme Court of Liberia is housed. The Chief Justice has departed. All the Associate Justices leaving the grounds, but Justice Yusuf Kaba has denied the bill of information and contempt prayed for by former District 10 Montserrado County Representative Yekeh Kolubah. Hence, the House of Representative has not been held in contempt. The bill of information has been denied. The Justice in Chambers said it wasn't done properly. Hence, it is not done at all.

[00:58:12]But on the other side, the petitioners' lawyers have said they have taken an exception to the ruling accepted, but taken an exception to the ruling and will present their case before the full bench of the Supreme Court. So this matter is not over until the full bench gives an opinion on this particular matter. Whatever the ruling will be, if the full bench overturns the ruling and and says yes, it was proper that the House of Representative should be held in contempt, meaning the writ of prohibition was to be in full effect and the entire expulsion saga will take a new turn. But if the full bench rules in line with what the Justice in Chambers has said today, meaning it is over for Representative Yekeh Kolubah or former Representative Yekeh Kolubah until his legal team can file another legal remedy. My name is Diamond Slanger. This saga is over as for now, but this battle this war is not particularly over. Thank you so much for watching from a blue pit chilly Temple of Justice. Thank you for watching and bye-bye.

[00:59:15]The court is up.