—Varney Sherman surfaces in House saga to settle scores, reigniting old rivalry
The political saga unfolding in Liberia’s House of Representatives has taken on a deeply ironic twist as former Senator and seasoned lawyer, Cllr. Varney Sherman, resurfaces in a legal battle against none other than Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, a figure he once squared off against in court. The unfolding situation is a boomerang effect of their earlier rivalry, now with Sherman representing the House’s “majority bloc” in its fight to unseat Koffa as Speaker.
Sherman, who once bore the brunt of Koffa’s high-profile investigation and subsequent prosecution into alleged bribery, is now in a position to question Koffa’s authority and potentially facilitate his removal. In 2016, Koffa, under the administration of then-President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, served as Special Prosecutor and head of the task force to investigate the Global Witness allegations against Sherman and others, in the Sable Mining case. This investigation cast Sherman, then a sitting senator and prominent lawyer, in a highly controversial light, accusing him and others of receiving bribes from UK-based Sable Mining in an attempt to gain control over the Wologisi iron ore concession in Lofa County. Despite the high-profile accusations, Sherman was ultimately acquitted, and he has since consistently maintained that the case against him was politically motivated.
Now, years later, with the tables turned, Sherman has the opportunity to challenge Koffa’s authority before the Supreme Court, rekindling an old rivalry under dramatically different circumstances.
Sherman Argues Against Koffa in Court
On November 4, 2024, Sherman took up the role of lead counsel for the House majority bloc in its legal battle to remove Speaker Koffa. The majority bloc had filed a writ to remove Koffa, arguing that he no longer held the confidence of the House majority. Koffa, however, filed a writ of prohibition to block the proceedings, arguing that his removal was being pursued without adherence to due process.
During the hearing, Sherman argued that Koffa’s prohibition writ was premature, emphasizing that the House majority had not yet acted on Koffa’s removal but was still in the process of establishing “cause” for the hearing. “We are trying to establish the cause to follow with a hearing before the removal proceedings,” Sherman contended, stating that Koffa’s attempt to block the process preemptively undermined the legislature’s authority to review his conduct.
For Koffa’s part, his legal team, led by former Supreme Court Justice Kanneh Ja’neh, argued that the majority bloc was attempting to circumvent due process and manipulate House rules to fast-track Koffa’s removal. Ja’neh emphasized that the Constitution provides a clear framework for the removal of a Speaker, and any attempt to bypass it was a violation of both Koffa’s rights and the legislative process.
The ethical conflict: pot and kettle
This renewed confrontation between Sherman and Koffa is complicated by an ethical crisis that now surrounds both figures. Article 90 of the Liberian Constitution, which outlines the code of conduct for public officials, expressly prohibits officials from engaging in activities that create conflicts of interest or receiving any “perquisites, emoluments, or benefits” outside of what is constitutionally sanctioned. In this case, both Koffa and the majority bloc he faces have been accused of violating these principles.
Koffa is accused of using his position as Speaker to engage in private legal work and consulting for government agencies—a clear conflict of interest if the claims hold true. At the same time, rumors have surfaced that members of the majority bloc accepted bribes to push for Koffa’s removal, which would also violate Article 90 by receiving benefits outside their lawful duties.
This ethical impasse is reminiscent of the 2016 Sable Mining case, when Koffa accused Sherman of orchestrating a bribery scheme to influence legislative decisions in favor of Sable Mining’s interests. Now, the situation feels like déjà vu, as Sherman accuses Koffa of breaching ethical standards, while Koffa’s supporters question the legitimacy of the majority bloc’s motives.
A battle steeped in history
In many ways, this legal and political standoff feels like a clash between old adversaries playing out against the backdrop of Liberian politics. In 2016, Koffa took center stage as the government’s face in the Global Witness Task Force, investigating Sherman and former House Speaker Alex Tyler in what was widely viewed as a landmark corruption case. Although Sherman ultimately escaped conviction, the case damaged his reputation, and Sherman later suggested that the entire affair was a “political witch-hunt” orchestrated by the Sirleaf administration.
Sherman’s latest arguments before the Supreme Court suggest a desire to settle old scores, portraying himself as a voice for constitutional order while casting doubt on Koffa’s ethical standing. Sherman insists that the majority bloc was adhering to procedural rules in its pursuit of Koffa’s removal, arguing that a formal hearing was being set to review Koffa’s performance as Speaker. However, for Sherman’s critics, his involvement in the case against Koffa appears as an attempt at retribution, seeking to turn the tables on a man who once put him through a high-stakes legal battle.
The Supreme Court’s role
The Supreme Court’s intervention in this matter is critical, not only to Koffa’s future as Speaker but to the overall ethical climate of the Legislature. With accusations of bribery and conflicts of interest hanging over both sides, the judiciary’s role as an impartial arbiter is paramount. During the hearing on Monday, November 4, Supreme Court Justice Yormie Quiqui Gbeisay listened to arguments from both Sherman and Ja’neh but has yet to issue a ruling.
Justice Gbeisay’s decision will set a precedent for how Liberia handles allegations of misconduct among its top lawmakers, particularly when both sides appear to be operating in ethical gray areas. As Sherman and Koffa face off, the public is left to wonder: Will the Supreme Court uphold Koffa’s writ of prohibition and prevent the majority bloc from moving forward, or will it allow the legislative process to continue with the majority bloc’s push for removal?
A test of integrity for Liberia’s Legislature
This clash between Sherman and Koffa, two lawyers with a complicated history, has turned the House of Representatives into a battleground for personal and political score-settling. It’s a high-stakes moment not only for the individuals involved but for Liberia’s legislative integrity. The ethical crisis, underpinned by Article 90’s strictures against conflicts of interest and unethical gain, points to a broader issue within Liberia’s public service—a culture of impunity and double standards that leaves the door open to self-serving political maneuvers.
The Supreme Court’s ruling could either reinforce or undermine Article 90, determining whether Liberia’s Legislature can hold itself to the highest ethical standards or if it will continue to function as a place where power politics overshadow integrity. Whatever the outcome, one thing is clear: the current battle between Koffa and Sherman is not just about a Speaker’s seat. It’s about Liberia’s commitment to justice, transparency, and the rule of law.
Source: Daily Observer
