Previous 21 / 30 Next

21 The records further indicate that the National Elections Commission, upon receipt of the documents from the appellant, on the same day, July 6, 2017, had same forwarded to a Nomination Scrutiny review Body, said to have been a component within the Commission, for its review and a report of its findings. The Report of the Nomination Scrutiny Review Body specified that the Co-appellant had met with all of the requirements for participation in the ensuing October 2017 elections, except as to the Code of Conduct resignation requirement, which it said the co-appellant had failed to present any proof of said compliance. On the basis of the lone finding in the report of non-compliance with the Code of Conduct resignation requirement, the report, signed by a single personnel of the Nomination Scrutiny Review Body, recommended that the Co-appellant’s Nomination Application be rejected. There is no indication as to whether the Report was forwarded to the Board of Commissioners, over which the Chairman of the NEC also served as Chairman. What the records do show is that one day after the preparation of the Report, that is July 7, 2017, a Notice of Rejection, over the signature of the Chairman of NEC, informed Co-appellant Karnwea that he was barred by the Code of Conduct for Public Officials from contesting in the October 2017 Elections on account of he having served as Managing Director of a public corporation and failing to resign in line with the Code. As noted before, there are no indications that any hearing was had, either before the Nomination Scrutiny Review Body or the Chairman of the National Elections Commission or the Board of Commissioners of the National Elections Commission before the Notice of rejection was delivered to Coappellant Karnwea. The records also do not show that any citations were ever issued by the Nomination Scrutiny review Body to Co-appellant Karnwea or the Liberty Party informing them of a deficiency in the Nomination Application and inviting them to appear to defend prior to the recommenddation being made or of any intention of that Body to make the said recommendation to reject Co-appellant Karnwea’s Nomination Application. Similarly, the records are devoid of any citation, either by the Chairman of the Commission or by the Board of Commissioners of the Commission informing the appellants of the recommendation of the Nomination Scrutiny Review Body and inviting them to appear and defend against the said

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