On December 11, 2024, the former ruling Coalition for Democratic Change (CDC) made headlines when it expelled longtime partisan and Deputy House Speaker Thomas Fallah. The decision sparked heated debates, not just about the expulsion itself but about the party’s broader approach to internal discipline.
In the same announcement, the CDC issued a stern warning to “temporarily” suspended Representatives who joined the majority bloc in the controversial move to remove Speaker Koffa. These lawmakers were given a seven-day ultimatum to reconsider their stance or face expulsion, much like Fallah.
But it has been nearly three weeks since that ultimatum, and no action has been taken against those recalcitrant Representatives. The selective enforcement of discipline raises questions about the fairness and consistency of the CDC’s actions.
For his part, Thomas Fallah claims he was expelled without due process. In a fiery response, he described the decision as a product of malice and lawlessness:
“This latest expulsion, like the prior suspension—steeped in malice and executed unilaterally without an executive committee quorum nor due process—is a flagrant abuse of power. It embodies lawlessness and mocks the very essence of due process, perpetrated by individuals clinging to hollow claims of upholding law and order.”
Fallah’s accusations have added weight to growing concerns of cherry-picking within the CDC’s disciplinary process. If other suspended Representatives are not held to the same standard, it lends credence to claims of favoritism and bias.
The CDC owes the public an update on the status of its ultimatum to those lawmakers who remain defiant. Silence on this matter only fuels perceptions that the party’s decisions are arbitrary and politically motivated.
A party that positions itself as a champion of democratic reform must demonstrate fairness and consistency in its internal governance. Anything less undermines its credibility and commitment to the principles of justice and equality.
DN News Liberia calls on the CDC to clarify its stance and ensure that its disciplinary actions are free from bias or selective enforcement. Accountability should not be a tool wielded selectively but a principle applied uniformly to all.
