๐๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ญ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ช๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ข๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐ง ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐ญ๐ญ๐๐ซ
By James Papy Kwabo
Lecturer in Public Policy, Communications and Local Government, Lofa County University, Voinjama, Lofa County
April 18,2026
Liberiaโs ongoing debate over Representative Yekeh Y. Kolubah should be approached with legal seriousness rather than political excitement. The country is not merely confronted with a dispute over one lawmaker. It is confronted with a constitutional question that goes to the heart of legislative power, due process, and democratic order. The core issue is simple; when a sitting Representative is expelled by the House, does that expulsion automatically bar him from recontesting for the same office in the future?
In my considered view, the answer under Liberian law is no.
The starting point must be the Constitution itself. ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ sets out the qualifications for becoming a member of the Legislature. For the House of Representatives, a candidate must be a Liberian citizen, must have attained the age of twenty-five years, must have been domiciled in the constituency for at least one year before the election, and must be a taxpayer. Those are the constitutional qualifications. What matters just as much is what ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ does not say. It does not provide that a person previously expelled from the Legislature is thereby disqualified from future candidacy.
That omission is important. In constitutional law, qualifications for elective office are not supposed to be expanded by implication or political feeling. If prior expulsion were intended to serve as a future bar, one would expect the Constitution to say so clearly. It does not.
Those who argue otherwise rely mainly on ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐, which gives each House authority, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the entire membership, to expel a member for cause. That provision unquestionably gives the House disciplinary power over its members. But the same provision only speaks to expulsion from a current seat. It does not go further to state that expulsion amounts to automatic disqualification from future election. The distinction is not minor. Removal from a present office and exclusion from future office are two separate legal consequences. A Constitution must be read carefully enough to preserve that difference.
This understanding becomes even stronger when ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ is read together with ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฅ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐. ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ treats expulsion as one of the causes of a vacancy in the Legislature and provides for notification to the Elections Commission so that the vacancy may be addressed through the electoral process. ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ then states that members of the House of Representatives are eligible for re-election. Read together, these provisions point toward a constitutional structure in which expulsion creates a vacancy but does not, by itself, create political exile.
The stronger argument becomes clearer when we compare ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ with other provisions in Liberian law that do expressly impose future disqualification. ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐, which deals with impeachment, states plainly that judgment may extend beyond removal from office to include disqualification from holding public office. The Elections Law follows the same pattern in relation to certain election offenses, such as bribery, where the law expressly provides for disqualification from elective public office for a defined period. This is highly significant. When the Constitution or statute intends a future ban, it says so directly. ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ does not.
That difference is not accidental. It reflects a deliberate constitutional design. Liberiaโs Constitution distinguishes between discipline, removal, and disqualification. It does not casually merge them into one consequence. Therefore, it is difficult to sustain the argument that expulsion silently carries a further penalty that the Constitution itself never expressly attached to it.
The Elections Law supports the same conclusion. The National Elections Commission is empowered to screen candidates and reject only those who are not legally qualified. The law recognizes certain explicit disqualifications, including those arising from conviction for infamous crimes and certain election offenses. But prior legislative expulsion, standing alone, is not listed among them. That means any attempt to reject a future candidacy on the sole ground of expulsion would have to confront a basic legal problem: the disqualification would not be clearly rooted in the law as written.
This is why the legal question should be kept distinct from the political one. Citizens may strongly disagree about Kolubahโs conduct. Some may believe the House acted properly. Others may condemn the action. But political approval or disapproval cannot substitute for constitutional analysis. The law must still answer whether expulsion alone automatically destroys future eligibility. On the text of the Constitution and the Elections Law, it does not.
There is, of course, another issue in the background, that is, the procedural validity of the expulsion itself. Public reports indicate that the Supreme Court, through the Justice in Chambers, ordered a halt to further proceedings before the House acted. The House, on its part, reportedly argued that it had not received formal service of the writ as was being circulated publicly. That controversy may become important in determining whether the House knowingly acted in defiance of a court order and whether the process itself complied with due process requirements. But even that separate dispute does not answer the larger constitutional question addressed here.
Even if the expulsion were ultimately upheld as valid, validity of the expulsion is not the same thing as automatic disqualification from future candidacy.
That is why Liberia must approach this matter with constitutional discipline. In a democracy, the House has the power to expel. The courts have the power to review. The Elections Commission has the power to screen candidates according to law. But none of these institutions should be allowed to create, by inference, a new qualification or disqualification that the Constitution itself did not establish.
At stake is not only the fate of one Representative. At stake is a larger principle;whether constitutional meaning in Liberia will be guided by text and law or by political impulse. On that principle, the better legal position is clear. Expulsion may end a present mandate. It does not, without more, cancel a citizenโs right to return to the people and seek their mandate again.
๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ญ๐๐
Constitution of the Republic of Liberia, especially ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฅ๐๐ฌ ๐๐, ๐๐, ๐๐, ๐๐, ๐๐, ๐๐, and ๐๐.
New Elections Law of Liberia, including provisions on candidate screening, domicile, voter qualification, and election offenses.
Abu Bana Kamara v. National Elections Commission, Supreme Court of Liberia, July 17, 2017.
Emmanuel Weedee-Conway, โLiberia: Supreme Court Halts Probe of Rep. Kolubah; Lawmakers Split as Pres. Boakai Warns โLot Will Happenโ,โ FrontPageAfrica, April 17, 2026.
FrontPageAfrica reporting on the House expulsion proceedings involving Representative Yekeh Y. Kolubah, April 2026.
Reporting by The Liberian Investigator on the House proceedings and the dispute over service of the writ, April 2026
