8/26/2020 Jupica vs Nec – Supreme Court of Liberia A fair disposition of this issue, we believe, requires a discussion of basic fundamental principles of our constitutional Government. The three Branches of the Government of the Republic of Liberia derive their authorities wholly from the powers granted to them by the Constitution, which is the supreme source of power authorizing action by any Branch of Government. The Constitution vests the power to make law in the Legislative Branch; the power to enforce law in the Executive Branch; and the power to interpret law in the Judiciary Branch of Government headed by the Supreme Court. One Branch cannot perform the duties and functions specially ascribed to another Branch. Therefore, this Supreme Court cannot exercise any power other than judicial power. In this regard, Article 65 of the Constitution provides: “The Judicial Power of the Republic shall be vested in a Supreme Court and such subordinate courts as the legislature may from time to time establish. The courts shall apply both statutory and customary laws in accordance with the standards enacted by the Legislature. Judgments of the Supreme Court shall be final and binding and shall not be subject to appeal or review by any other branch of Government. Nothing in this Article shall prohibit administrative consideration of the justiciable matter prior to review by a court of competent jurisdiction.” The petitioners have contended that this Court has power to determine the issue raised in their petition that the ebola virus still being present and prevalent in Liberia, it is a violation of their rights guaranteed under the Constitution for the elections to be held. As we see it, for this Court to grant the relief sought, it must clearly be shown that the petition raises a justiciable issue, and not a political question. In our opinion, the determination sought by the petitioners in their challenge to the conduct of the elections on account of the ebola virus is one which this Court, being the head of the Judicial Branch of our Government, cannot make because of the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution and also because of the political question doctrine. The political question doctrine recognizes the principle of separation of powers, which is inherent in our Constitution and therefore excludes some disputes from judicial determination. According to the political question doctrine, a subject matter is inappropriate for judicial resolution where it is exclusively assigned to the political branches of our government or where the political branches are better-suited than the judicial branch to determine the matter. Hence, the political question doctrine excludes from judicial review those controversies which revolve around policy choices and value determinations only committed for resolution by the Legislative or Executive Branch of our Government. In the case: Massaquoi v. The Republic, 3LLR 41 (1933) this is what this Court said: “Matters which are by their nature solely political should be confined within the realm of politics. There is a vital difference between justiciable matters and matters political. Courts of law are instituted for the purpose of deciding only such questions as are susceptible of determination by the application of well recognized rules of law or equity by which they can be decided. The only rule applicable to the adjustment of such questions is the rule of conciliation or compromise; and when a court of law embarks on such turbulent seas, it immediately loses its office as a judicial tribunal and abdicates its forum where pettifogging politicians resort to ventilate their little minds. Any verdict based upon non-justiciable matters is therefore illegal, and the appellate Court shall remand the cause to be tried de novo.” comnetitsolutionsinc.org/toj/jupica-vs-nec-2/ 23/27