Previous 5 / 30 Next

5 certain documents which had been submitted by Appellants Harrison S. Karnwea and Liberty Party, seeking certification by the national Elections Commission of Co-appellant Harrison S. Karnwea, Sr. as a candidate for the position of vice-president in the ensuing October 2017 presidential and General Elections on the ticket of the Liberty Party, and that upon review of the documents by the designated personnel of the Nomination Scrutiny Review Body, it had determined that although all of the requirements for qualification of candidate Karnwea by the National Elections Commission had been met, he was not in compliance with section 5.1 and 5.2 of the Code of Conduct which required that he should have resigned his position as Managing Director of the Forestry Development Authority two years prior to the ensuing October 2017 Elections, and that based thereupon it was recommending that the Application of Co-appellants Karnwea and Liberty Party be rejected; that predicated upon the said recommendation of the Nomination Scrutiny Review personnel, the Chairman of the National Elections Commission, on July 7, 2017, one day after the recommendation, issued out a Notice of Rejection against the nomination of Harrison S. Karnwea, Sr. as a vice-presidential candidate in the ensuing 2017 Elections on the ticket of Liberty Party. The Notice of Rejection, signed exclusively by the Chairman of the National Elections Commission, specifically informed the appellants that Harrison S. Karnwea was barred by the Code of Conduct for Public Officials from contesting the October 2017 Elections since he had served as head of a public corporation and had not resigned the position in line with the Code. Neither the Report of the Nomination Scrutiny Review personnel nor the Notice of Rejection gave any indications that the recommendation and decision were the result of any hearing conducted by or held before those bodies or persons. The case file is completely devoid of any minutes or other records indicating that any citations were issued out either by the Nomination Scrutiny Body or the Chairman of the National Elections Commission and served on the appellants, or that any hearings were conducted at which the appellants were present or were given the opportunity to defend against any alleged or perceived deficiency(ies) in the Application and other accompanying documents placed before those bodies

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