The Supreme Court of Liberia is expected to hear arguments Thursday, October 22, in expelled Montserrado County District #10 Representative Yekeh Y. Kolubah's legal challenge to his removal, a case testing legislative disciplinary powers, judicial authority, and constitutional due process.

The case stems from the House of Representatives' April 17, 2026, decision to expel Kolubah over statements attributed to him during a border dispute between Liberia and Guinea. His challenge raises questions about whether lawmakers followed constitutional procedures and defied a Supreme Court order directing them to suspend further proceedings.

The Court's October 14 notice, signed by Clerk Cllr. Sam Mamulu, scheduled today's hearing. It remains unclear whether the justices will deliver a final ruling immediately afterward.

The controversy began when Kolubah reportedly stated that disputed territory belonged to Guinea, remarks lawmakers considered damaging to Liberia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Inspector General of Police Gregory Coleman also warned the House that the statements could unsettle border communities, noting that Guinean authorities had referred to the comments.

Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines

On April 9, Montserrado County District #3 Representative Sumo Mulbah filed a complaint seeking Kolubah's expulsion for alleged misconduct and violation of his oath of office. Representative Michael Thomas of District #4 subsequently moved for the House Committee on Rules, Order and Administration to investigate.

The proceedings became contentious when Kolubah's lawyers, Cllr. Kabineh Ja'neh, Cllr. Moriah Yeakula Korkpor, and Cllr. Jonathan Massaquoi, requested additional time and access to evidence and relevant House rules to prepare their defense.

Committee Chairman Representative James Kolleh rejected the request, maintaining that the lawyers' role was to advise their client. The committee denied a written petition for an extension and resumed proceedings after a brief recess.

Korkpor objected, warning that proceeding without the requested materials would undermine Kolubah's right to due process.

"We cannot proceed with this hearing if we are not provided with the evidence and the relevant House rules we requested to adequately prepare our defense," he said.

The defense team subsequently walked out.

The House maintains that Kolubah was given an opportunity to defend himself but abandoned the proceedings. His lawyers argue that a hearing alone does not satisfy the constitutional requirement for a meaningful opportunity to be heard under Article 20(a), which guarantees due process.

While the proceedings were ongoing, Kolubah's lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition. On April 16, Associate Justice Yussif D. Kaba, sitting in Chambers, ordered House leaders to appear for a conference on April 20 at 2:30 p.m.

His order stated: "Meanwhile, you are ordered to stay all further proceedings and/or actions in the matter pending the outcome of the conference."

However, the House voted to expel Kolubah the following day, April 17. The resolution reportedly secured 49 signatures, meeting the two-thirds majority required under Article 38 of the Constitution in a 73-member House.

The decision triggered a dispute over whether lawmakers violated the stay order and whether the House had been formally served.

Deputy Chief Clerk Tuah Woods told reporters she had not seen communication from the Court. However, a return writ reportedly indicates that the order was delivered to the Office of the Chief Clerk and signed for by Tababo Toe-Teh, identified as a computer analyst.

The question of service could prove significant in determining whether the House proceeded in violation of the Court's directive.

Beyond procedure, the case concerns the balance between legislative independence and judicial oversight. Article 38 empowers the Legislature to establish rules, maintain order, and expel members for cause by a two-thirds vote. However, that authority operates alongside constitutional protections for expression and due process.

Defenders of legislative independence argue that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of lawmakers on internal disciplinary matters. Kolubah's lawyers contend that legislative authority must remain subject to constitutional safeguards.

The dispute could also affect a possible by-election in District #10. Article 37 provides for notification of the National Elections Commission within 30 days when a legislative vacancy arises through expulsion, although the validity of such a vacancy may depend on the Court's decision.

In May, Justice Kaba dismissed Kolubah's Bill of Information on procedural grounds, finding that the House had not been properly served because documents were not delivered to the Sergeant-at-Arms, the official authorized to receive them. That ruling did not resolve the constitutionality of the expulsion.

Today's hearing could determine whether the Court revisits procedural questions or addresses the substantive constitutional issues, including the effect of the stay order.

The outcome could clarify the limits of legislative disciplinary powers, the enforceability of judicial orders, and the due-process protections owed to elected representatives facing expulsion.