9/16/2020 NATIONAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION V AMOS SIEH SIEBO-MOTION TO DISMISS-FINAL JUDGMENT – Order that a ballot box be re-opened and re-counted Order a re-vote at a polling place or polling station; Refer a complaint to the Minister of Justice for prosecution if it believes that there is credible evidence of a crime or Order a punishment within the authority of the commission under this law. The Commission cannot simply dismiss a complaint in a matter that involves the acceptance or rejection of an aspirant’s nomination application; neither can there be any ballot box to be re-opened and re-counted at the stage of nomination, nor will there be a vote taken at a polling place for which a re-vote could be ordered. Thus, the provision of the Elections Law referenced by the movant/appellee cannot be used to support the instance of a denial of a candidate’s registration to contest an election, which is the matter before us. But even more disconcerting for us is that the respondent/appellant chose not to challenge the reliance of the movant/appellee for the motion to dismiss the appeal, but chose instead to adopt a position that centered on the nomenclature of the committee or individual(s) designated by the National Elections Commission to perform the task of determining whether the respondent/appellant had met the statutory requirements for registration as a candidate. It is the contention of the appellant that since the referenced provision states that “the Commission may appoint hearing officers to assess, investigate and assist Magistrate to determine complaints, and a chief hearing office to make an initial determination on complaints to the Commission”, the name of the Nomination Committee not having been mentioned in the New Elections Law, it could not have made a decision to reject the appellant’s application. The argument gives the impression that had the decision to reject the appellant been taken by a hearing officer or chief hearing officer or a magistrate rather than the Nomination Committee, the appellant would not have posed the present challenge regardless of whether or not the said hearing officer, magistrate or chief hearing officer had proceeded by wrong rules. It implies that the respondent/appellant would have accepted the outcome of the hearing officer, magistrate or chief judiciary.gov.lr/national-elections-commission-v-amos-sieh-siebo-motion-to-dismiss-final-judgment/ 27/36