Previous 19 / 30 Next

19 Opinion, this Court not only declared sections 5.1 and 5.2, and indeed the entire Code as constitutional, but clearly stated that the Code provided that a violation of any of the provision of the Code of Conduct Act would attract the imposition of a range of penalties from dismissal to interdiction or suspension from duty with half pay, and inclusive of all of the following: (a) Dismissal; (b) Removal from office in public interest; (c) Reprimand (d) Fine or making good of the loss or damage of public property/assets; (e) Demotion (reduction in ranking); (f) Seizure and forfeiture to the State of any property acquired from abuse of office; and (g) Interdiction/suspension from duty with half pay The Court made it clear, however, that the penalties listed above, stipulated in section 15.1 of the Code of Conduct was not exhaustive as counsel for the Petitioner Polson sought to be impressed upon the Court. The Court explained that given the nature of the ill which the statute sought to cure, coupled with the reference prohibition provisions of 5.1 and 5.2, it believed that the penalties also included disqualification from contesting an elective public office where the aspirant or applicant’s conduct was egregious. The National Elections Commission was given the task of making the determination of the precise penalty to be imposed, on an individual case basis, on a violator of sections 5.1 and 5.2. That task or authority, previously vested in the Ombudsman Commission, was transferred to the National Elections Commission by the Legislature by an amendment to the Code which became effective on June 23, 2017. It was in pursuit of this new task or authority conferred on the National Elections Commission that the Chairman of the National Elections Commission purportedly acted when he issued out the Notice of Rejection of the Nomination Application of Co-appellant Harris S. Karnwea, Sr. as the vice presidential candidate to Charles Walker Brumskine on the ticket of Co-appellant Liberty Party and informed him that he was barred by his non-compliance with the resignation provisions of the Code of Conduct. The further question for this Court’s resolution then is whether the failure of Co-appellant Karnwea to resign his position two years

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