Previous 2 / 30 Next

2 Kamara v. The National Election Commission, decided three days ago on July 17, 2017, this Court addressed a number of issues surrounding flaws in the manner in which the National Elections Commission had pursued the exercise of the responsibilities delegated to it by law in certifying candidates to contest the ensuing October 2017 national elections. In spite of the identification of the flaws, however, this Court denied the petition for the writ of prohibition since, in the mind of the Court, the petition for the writ of prohibition was the inappropriate course designated by law to address the final decision of the National Elections Commission barring and disqualifying the petitioner from contesting a particular elective public office in the ensuing October 2017 elections. In the instant case, a similar set of facts are presented in respect to the National Elections Commission barring and disqualifying of Co-appellant Harrison S. Karnwea, Sr. from seeking a specific elective public office, that is the vice-presidency of the Republic under the ticket of the Liberty Party, the other co-appellant in these proceedings. As in the Kamara case, in the instant case the National Elections Commission had pursued the identical course of action in barring and disqualifying Co-appellant Harrison S. Karnwea, Sr. from participating in the pending October 2017 Elections and had predicated its decision, which embodied much of the same flaws identified in the Kamara case, on what it termed as “candidate is barred by the Code of Conduct for Public Officials.” The difference between the rationale set forth by the National Elections Commission as revealed in the Kamara case and the rationale set forth by the Commission as disclosed from the facts in the instant case is only that in the Kamara case the petitioner was an Assistant Minister who, even at the filing of the application for certification by the National Elections Commission continued to hold onto the appointed public office while in the instant case Co-appellant Harrison S. Karnwea, Sr., although having resigned several months prior to filing of his application for certification to contest the particular elective office stated in the application still did not meet the two years requirement stated in the Code of Conduct and applicable to a person holding the position which he held in the public corporation. We note further that the decision by the Commission rejecting 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