For the last few weeks, there have been frantic attempts by some of our distinguished colleagues to make Speaker Tyler recuse himself as presiding officer of the Honorable House of Representatives based on a criminal indictment against him.

Their action was summed up in a resolution read in the joint chambers on the 11th of August 2016 with the names of forty representatives read out, though there were only thirty-four representatives in attendance.

My fellow citizens, as a lawmaker, I reject the resolution of my colleagues with the highest degree of condemnation it deserves. My rejection is based on the fact that most of the counts in their resolution are either half-truths, wild allegations or without legal reliance.

More so, those supporting the resolution have been incoherent in presenting the central thrust of their resolution. While some of them are opting for “recusal as presiding officer,” others are asking for Hon. Tyler to step down as Speaker of the Honorable House of Representatives.

It is, however, understandable that my colleagues are pursuing this agenda because of undefined motives.

In the House’s Standing Rule 9, “The Speaker, Deputy Speaker and other officers of the House, may be removed from office for cause of a two-thirds majority of the members of the House.”

What cause have my colleagues established? Where is the two-thirds majority? Has the Speaker been heard? The answers are all NO! NO! NO!

Even Rule 10.1 (Succession of the Leadership) says that “when the office of the speaker shall become vacant by reason of removal, death, resignation, inability or other disabilities, the deputy speaker shall assume the position of Speaker until a new speaker is elected within 60 days.”

As per all of the provisions of succession outlined, which one have they established as a cause in concert with our constitution or the House’s Rule?

My fellow citizens, I am baffled that my learned colleagues will elect to proceed in such manner and fashion.

What is influencing their conduct? It cannot be on the basis of morality because one cannot fight a moral war using immoral means. The widespread allegation of financial inducement against them invalidates their argument of morality. If this is a proxy war, then such conduct is sacrilegious and denigrating to the prestige and decorum of this Honorable House of Representatives.

We cannot sit supinely and let individuals manipulate our laws, breaking powerful branches bit by bit. We need to hold ourselves to higher standards. Standards that believe in the rule of law and must do what is right under the rule of law. The world is looking at us and to undermine our laws will diminish our standing within the community of nations and tarnish the image of our country.

Members of the fourth estate, when the Highest Court of Law (Supreme Court) had repeatedly ruled that the legislature constantly violated the Constitution as were in the cases of Wolo v. Wolo, Rep. Edwin Melvin Snowe v. Dr. Kettehkumeh Murray and majority members of representatives of the 52nd Legislature, Isaac Nyanibo v. Majority Members of the Liberian Senate, Mary Broh v. the House of Representatives, Grace Kpan v. the House of Representatives, amongst other.

This simply means that the Supreme Court, in its power of judicial review will turn us to status quo ante. Anyway, it is not my job to worry about the Supreme Court ruling. I am here to uphold the Constitution. Beyond all measures, we cannot remain inactive while a group of people unashamedly destabilize the workings of the National Legislature and turn its sacred grounds to a hub of brouhaha.

To conclude, let me make it abundantly clear that I stand with the Constitution and our house’s rules and procedures. If on the other hand, Speaker Tyler chooses to recuse himself, so be it. The last time I checked the Webster Dictionary, “recusal” is defined as an act to remove oneself from a decision or judgment because of a conflict of interest.

Featured photo courtesy of Brittany Danisch