Previous 16 / 30 Next

16 the National Elections Commission; that is, that the Legislature intended that persons holding presidential appointments in the Executive Branch of the Government should resign their appointed positions within the times stated by the Act or be exposed to any one of a number of penalties, including, under the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Polson case, disbarment from contesting an elective public position. We hold therefore that Co-appellant Karnwea was covered by the Act, as are all other appointed public officials captured in the Polson-Mappy Opinion. We therefore hold that a lack of any formal expression of desire by Appellant Karnwea until his selection by Counsellor Charles Walker Brumskine as his vice presidential running mate on March 18, 2017, did not preclude him from the ambit of the Code of Conduct Act. Having determined the co-appellant Harrison S. Karnwea, Sr., is covered by the Code, the next issue is whether co-appellant Harrison Karnwea was in violation of section 5.1 of the Code of Conduct for which he could be amendable to sanctions as provided by the Code. We hold he did. We take key interest in the appellee’s argument that while still serving as Managing Director of the Forestry Development Authority (FDA), Co-appellant Harrison S. Karnwea convened a press conference at which time he resigned from the governing Unity Party and pledged and committed himself to Co-appellant Liberty Party as a full member and that he indicated at the said conference that the Liberty Party was the best option for the Liberian People in the forthcoming general and presidential elections. This assertion of the appellee is captured in count 1.1 of the appellee’s brief as follows: “The Co-appellant, Harrison Karnwea, until March 9, 2017, served as Managing Director of the Forestry Development Authority ("FDA"). On February 14, 2017, while still serving as Managing Director of FDA, at an elaborate Press Conference, CoAppellant Karnwea announced his resignation from the ruling Unity Party and joined the Liberty Party. At the said Press Conference, Co-Appellant Karnwea is reported to have said that the Liberty Party represents the best option for Liberia. This constituted Co-appellant Karnwea's first open violation of Part V,

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Karnwea v. National Elections Commission

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether an investigation is necessary to prohibit a candidate from running when they allegedly do not meet the qualifications? Whether the Election Commission may go beyond the statutorily prescribed penalties for not meeting a qualification?

Alleged Acts: Co-appellant, Karnwea, was seeking the Vice Presidency under the Liberty Party and was barred from participating in the October 2017 elections on the bases that he did not meet the two year requirement for resigning from a public corporation in the Code of Conduct. The co-appellant resigned several months prior to filing his application for certification to contest the particular elective office.

Procedural history: The court found that the Election Commission’s notice of rejection only had evidence that the Chairman signed and decided the opinion, not the inclusion of any other members of the Election Commission. The co-appellant appealed directly to the Supreme Court rather than Election Commission’s remedial process.

Summary: The court determined that the record was devoid of investigation or hearing conducted in accordance with the bar from participating in elections and the appellants had not been heard regarding the matter. Further, there was no evidence that the Board of Commissioners outside of the Chairman were aware of the ruling. On the merits, the appellant argued that he could not have anticipated running two years before and resigned from his position because at the time he did not have political ambitions. Further, the appellant argued that the vice presidency is determined by the presidential candidate, not the vice president himself. The court determined that the word desire in the statute required a more thorough investigation into the facts. The court determined that the violation did not warrant disqualification from contesting the application, but that the Commission should impose a penalty within the Code’s stipulated penalties.

Conclusion: The decision of the National Election Commission was reversed and remanded for a determination of the penalty imposed on the co-appellant Karnwea.

Legal Issue(s)

Candidate Registration
Civil Procedure
EMB Independence

Region: Africa

Country: Liberia

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: Presidential

Date of decision: Jul 20, 2017

Geolocation

Latitude: 6.404914557

Longitude: -10.67993335

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

HARRISON-S.-KARNWEA-AND-LIBERTY-PARTY-V.-NATIONAL-ELECTIONS-COMMISSION-FINAL-JUDGMENT.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Karnwea v. National Elections Commission

Primary Documents

Notifications