The Constitution of the Republic of Liberia does not place any branch of government above the law. The Executive is not above the law. The Judiciary is not above the law. The Legislature is not above the law. The Constitution of Liberia, the supreme law of the land, places no branch of government and no official of government above the law. Not even the President of the Republic is above the law.

By Cllr. Tiawan Saye Gongloe, contributing writer

Recent events, in which the Minister of Justice was cited by the Senate after applying to the court for subpoenas to compel the production of documents required by the General Auditing Commission (GAC) for a full audit of the Senate, raise serious constitutional concerns. The Senate cited the Minister of Justice even after the application had been withdrawn. These concerns are not personal or political; they are institutional and constitutional.

The General Auditing Commission is statutorily mandated to audit public institutions. That mandate includes the Legislature. Public funds are not institutional property; they are public resources held in trust for the people. Transparency is therefore not discretionary; it is a legal obligation.

If disputes arise regarding document production or audit compliance, the proper forum for resolution is the Judiciary. The Ministry of Justice approached the court. That was the correct constitutional avenue. Once the application was withdrawn, the matter ceased to be a live legal controversy. Legally, it became moot. For the Senate to respond by citing the Minister of Justice after the judicial process had been withdrawn risks conveying the impression of institutional retaliation rather than constitutional oversight, particularly given the Legislature’s past exercise of contempt powers, including the imprisonment of public officials. The Ministry of Justice did no wrong to the Senate; therefore, the Senate was owed no apology.

The Senate is not above the law.

Liberia’s history of instability, fragmentation, and delayed national progress has often been rooted in disregard for the rule of law. Whenever institutions assert authority in ways that undermine established legal processes, constitutional alarm is justified. Democracy survives not on demonstrations of power but on disciplined adherence to constitutional boundaries.

This constitutional tension is not theoretical to me. I have confronted it directly.

During my tenure as Solicitor General, two sitting Senators were indicted — one for a first-degree felony and the other for a second-degree felony. I was summoned before the Senate and questioned for nearly two hours as to why the Ministry of Justice would indict Senators when such action “did not happen in the past.” My response was consistent: the Constitution does not place Senators above the law. If no Senator had been indicted in the past, perhaps in the past all Senators were law-abiding.

One of the indictments involved a Senator charged with aggravated assault against his niece. During questioning, a Senator asked why a Senator should be indicted for assaulting “his own niece.” I responded by emphasizing that criminal law protects life and bodily integrity as matters of public concern, not private discretion. I explained that even attempted suicide, if unsuccessful, can constitute a criminal offense because the State has a constitutional duty to protect life. Life is not a private possession exempt from public law. The Government of Liberia is constitutionally obligated to protect the life of every citizen and resident within its jurisdiction. After that exchange, I was discharged.

The Senate is not above the law.

A similar constitutional boundary arose during my tenure as Minister of Labor. I was cited by the Speaker of the House of Representatives in relation to Regulation No. 17, which increased work permit fees. Upon arrival, I found foreign entrepreneurs seated with him who objected to the regulation. I informed the Speaker that if the businessmen believed their rights were violated, the Judiciary, not the Legislature, was the proper forum for redress. Subsequently, the House passed a resolution expressing a vote of no confidence in me and transmitted it to President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. The President responded that her Minister had violated no law and that she retained confidence in him. That concluded the matter.

These experiences underscore a central constitutional principle: public officials must comply with legislative summonses. However, compliance does not require surrender of constitutional judgment. When appearing before the Legislature, officials must remain anchored in statutory duty and constitutional fidelity. Legislative contempt powers do not override constitutional supremacy.

The Supreme Court clarified the limits of legislative contempt in Morlu II v. House of the Senate [2008] LRSC 19 (28 June 2008). In that case, Morlu filed a petition for prohibition after the Senate held him in contempt for issuing a press statement which the Senate claimed misinformed the international community. In ruling against the Senate, the Supreme Court held that even if Morlu had provided misinformation, such conduct did not obstruct legislative functions or impede members or officers of the Senate in the discharge of their legislative duties. The Court made clear that legislative contempt exists to protect the integrity of legislative proceedings, not to shield the Legislature from lawful scrutiny or to serve as an instrument of institutional retaliation. The Legislature’s contempt authority is not unlimited. It is bounded by constitutional constraints and subject to judicial review.

The Senate is not above the law.

The fact that the Legislature is mentioned first in the Constitution does not confer superiority over the other branches. It reflects structural ordering, not hierarchical dominance. Separation of powers does not establish supremacy of one branch over another; it establishes coordinated accountability under constitutional limits.

If the Executive exceeds its authority, the courts provide correction. If the Legislature exceeds its authority, the courts provide correction. If the Judiciary errs, appellate review provides correction. That is how constitutional democracy functions.

Institutional strength does not lie in demonstrations of power but in disciplined adherence to constitutional boundaries. Displays of authority that appear to circumvent legal process risk eroding public confidence in democratic governance.

No House of the Legislature is above the law. No Minister is above the law. No citizen is above the law. Not even the President of the Republic is above the law.

The Senate is not above the law.

Cllr. Tiawan Saye Gongloe is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Liberia.