FOR THREE MONTHS THE HOUSE of Representatives lurked in a vicious circle of a crisis over the recusal of then Speaker Alex Tyler, as he was indicted in the Sable Mining scandal, sparked by a Global Witness report back in May.
THROUGHOUT THE THREE MONTH of what seemed an endless power struggle between “anti-Tyler” and pro-Tyler” blocs on Capitol Hill, the former bloc hinged their persistence for Tyler’s recusal on an ethical argument. They claimed to be embarrassed and affected by the probable ineptitude of the Tyler. One of them, Grand Bassa’s Representative claimed that they only wanted him recuse himself and would be reinstated should he not be adjudged guilty of bribery and other crimes for which he was indicted.
TYLER REMAINED FIRM FOR THOSE torrid three months, accusing not only his colleagues for illegally trying to get him out of office, but even President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of being the mastermind behind the entire saga. His insistence did not go down well with the public, and there were many calling for his recusal—the National Traditional Council, women groups and a band of civil society organizations. Tyler looked like he was the antagonist in the showdown and seemed to be against the passage of key bills, including the most urgent 2016/2017 draft fiscal budget.
FINALLY ON SEPTEMBER 1, he gave in. “If my recusal is the ultimate sacrifice that will move our country forward and end this current quagmire, I am herewith recusing myself from presiding over the plenary of the House of Representatives,” Alex Tyler said in a statement.
BUT NOW EVERYONE KNOWS that Tyler had been right all along, he had been a necessary skeptic. During the period before his recusal, observers had said the Bomi lawmaker was preserving not only his position as the third most powerful person in the country, but also that he could not afford to lose around US$1.5 million apportioned to the office every year. This was validated when he was ousted by two thirds majority vote on Tuesday.
“IT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW because an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. Once he recused himself they should have waited for him to be tried as per law,” former Solicitor General, Tiawon Gongloe told our reporter. “The trial, if done, will establish if the man violated the constitution or not; the lawmakers acted on presumption which is in error. It is in violation of the law because an accused person is proven innocent until proven guilty. Just by the joint resolution without hearing violates Article 20 of the constitution,” he further noted.
IT IS NOT ONLY ON LEGAL grounds that we see the shameful condition in the coup d’état against the Bomi lawmaker. Not even the fact that he led a conspiracy to oust Representative Edwin Snowe as Speaker back in 2007 can justify this political misstep. The error lies directly with the same reason for which majority of the House of Representatives sought his recusal: Ethics.
THE LAWMAKERS PILLARED their rebellion against Tyler on moral ground that his indictment into the nearly US$1 million Sable Mining fraud had inflicted moral wounds on that august body, and that the morale of their positions had dwindled. Some even made it more practical that it would have been the most shameful thing to see the Speaker presiding and rushed out of session by a sheriff.
NOW WE KNOW WHAT THEY had all planned; however, not to our dismay or amusement. We now know what our lawmakers are capable of; we cannot accept that he was removed in that fashion. They were not being embarrassed by his indictment. They just saw a perfect opportunity to get him out.