Previous 22 / 30 Next

22 recommendation. All that we find in the records is that on July 7, 2017, the Chairman of the Commission, in his capacity as Chairman of the Commission, informed the appellants that the Nomination Application regarding Coappellant Harrison S. Karnwea, Sr. had been rejected and that the coappellant was therefore barred from contesting in the October 2017 Elections. Upon enquiry by this Court, counsel for the Respondent National Elections Commission conceded that under the existing procedure within the Commission, no formal hearing was conducted before the decision was made barring Co-appellant Karnwea, or for that matter any aspirant applying for certification, from contesting any elective public office in the ensuing October 2017 Elections. They admitted that the appellee did not believe that under the circumstances where, in the application the aspirant acknowledged that he or she did not resign prior to the period prohibited by the Code of Conduct there was a need for any hearing to be conducted to determine how or why the aspirant had failed to comply with the Code, and that once that noncompliance was shown on the face of the Application documents, the appellee deemed it sufficient to decide that the Applicant was barred by the Code. We disagree with how the appellee pursued the process in determining that Co-appellant Karnwea, and for that matter any other Applicant, be barred from participating in the ensuing October 2017 Elections. We hold that regardless of what appeared on the face of the Application, the co-appellant and every other aspirant for an elective public office must be given the opportunity to be heard as to the reason for his or her non-compliance, even if for no other reason than to determine the level of penalty to be imposed upon him or her; and this can be done only after the conduct of a hearing, especially given the National Elections Commission’s new responsibility to adjudicate under the amendment made to the Code of Conduct Act. This Court has said consistently, and per the mandate of the Constitution and statutory laws of this nation, that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, security of the person, property, privilege or any other right except as the outcome of a hearing judgment consistent with the provisions laid down in this Constitution and in accordance with due process of law.” LIB. CONST.

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