Previous 23 / 30 Next

23 ART 20(a) (1986); Abu Bana Kamara v. National Elections Commission, Supreme Court Opinion, March Term 2017, delivered March 3, 2017. We wonder how the appellee, National Elections Commission, made a determination of the penalty to impose on a particular candidate in the face of an alleged violation of the Code without conducting a full investigation in order to ascertain the severity of the violation. Even the provision of the Code of Conduct, which the appellee profess to be enforcing, when any violation is found, the accompanied penalty is not a strict liability imposition; but vary from one circumstance to another. See Sections 5.9 and 15.1 of the Code of Conduct. That is why this Court has occasionally held that although “election’s hearing conducted by NEC is an administrative hearing which is not hinged on the strict rules of Court, the basic requirement is a formal notice of the complaint or violation in the instant case, a date, time and place for hearing of the matter to be investigated. Tokpa v. National Elections Commission, et al., Supreme Court Opinion, March Term 2015; Chambers v. NEC, Supreme Court Opinion, March Term, 2015. Madam Justice Yuoh speaking for this Court in the Tokpa case espoused thus: “This is why we continue to admonish the NEC and other administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions and lawyers appearing before these bodies that hearings within these respective institutions are investigative in nature and that the technical procedures obtaining in courts cannot be strictly applied except those mandatory requirements pertaining to due process and other fundamental rights.” [Our Emphasis] We say emphatically that the Elections Law provides that all decisions of the Commission must be taken by majority of those commissioners constituting a quorum for the transaction of business. Section 2.4 of the law provides: “Any three (3) members at the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business of the Commission, and a majority of the members of the Commission shall decide any question before it, and that decision shall be binding on the Commission.” Similarly, section 2.10(c) provides:

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