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