Previous 6 / 30 Next

6 or persons. Additionally, there are no records in the case file evidencing that the Board of Commissioners, as a Body, held any meeting(s) or hearing(s) whereat the issue of the deficiency(ies) or perceived deficiency(ies) identified by the personnel of the Nomination Scrutiny Review body was reviewed or addressed, or that the appellants were informed of the recommendation of the Nomination Scrutiny Review personnel or invited by the reviewing personnel of the said Body so that they would be given the opportunity to defend against the recommendation and to appeal same to the Board of Commissioners. Indeed, the records do no indicate that the recommendation was ever referred to the Board of Commissioners, as a Body, or that the Board ever assumed jurisdiction of the case, or that any citations were issued by the Board and served on the appellants informing them of the recommendation of the personnel of the Nomination Scrutiny Review Body and inviting them to defend against the said recommendation. We have also not found in the case file any records that any member(s) of the Board of Commissioners, other than the Chairman, were aware of the recommendation of the Nomination Scrutiny Review personnel or of the decision made upon the said recommendation which was conveyed in the “Notice of rejection of Nomination Application”, signed solely and exclusively by the Chairman of the National Elections Commission and with no other accompanying documents evidencing that the decision was of the Board, rejecting the appellants’ application and barring Co-appellant Harrison S. Karnwea, Sr. from participating in or contesting for the position of vice president in the ensuing October 2017 elections. What we do find in the records is that the appellants, believing that the Notice of Rejection quoted above, done in response to the Application filed by Co-appellants Harrison S. Karnwea, Sr. and Liberty Party, and which although signed only by the Chairman of the National Elections Commission, constituted a final decision of the Commission and thereby necessitated resorting to an appeal to the Supreme Court as provided for by the Constitution of Liberia, the Elections Law and the Elections Guidelines, filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, on July 10, 2017, a bill of exceptions wherein it challenged, on a single ground, the decision purporting to be of the

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