Previous 24 / 30 Next

24 “For the purpose of expediting the hearings and determination of all election offenses; and other business of the Commission shall apportion the Republic into five (5) administrative areas and assign a commissioner to an area who shall, in consultation with the Commission en bane, direct and supervise all election activities in his area of assignment, including the hearing and determination of election offenses arising therefrom, which determination having been previously approved by the Commission, shall be final.” There being no record that the National Elections Commission conducted any hearing prior to its rejection of the appellant, followed by the concession of the lawyers appearing for the NEC, we hold that the NEC committed serious error when it rejected the appellant without conducting a hearing and that the rejection documents signed singularly by Chairman Korkoya does not constitute the decision of the Board of Commissioners as anticipated by law. Indeed, only three days ago, on July 17, 2017, this Court, in the case Abu Bana Kamara v. National Elections Commission, faced with a similar challenge to the rejection by the National Elections Commission of an aspirant in an identical manner, held that the National Election Commission committed a serious error in not according the aspirant due process of law before rejecting his application and proceeding to declare him barred from contesting an elective public position in the ensuing October 2017 Elections. This Court said that no such determination can or should be made without the aspirant and his or her political party being accorded a hearing and an opportunity to enjoy the due process right accorded by the Constitution. Here is how this Court framed its response to the admitted denial of the due process of law right by the National Elections Commission in barring aspirants vying for elective public offices in the October 2017 Elections: “The right to due process is a fundamental constitutional protection; no person can be deprived of that right by any agency of the Government, whether of the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary or any other forum. The right was couched in the Constitution of Liberia from the very inception of the nation’s independence in 1847 and it remains enshrined in our present Constitution (1986). Even when Liberia experienced the trauma of a military coup and a civil armed conflict, the right was maintained and adhered to by this Court. Due process is therefore at the very core of our jurisprudence. Thus, we are not prepared to tolerate any departure from this long standing

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