8/26/2020 Jupica vs Nec – Supreme Court of Liberia political or involved policy choices, such as whether or not to declare war; whether or not to establish diplomatic relations or to sever same; or whether or not the government should develop a social welfare policy aimed at helping the poor or elderly, etc. And in this case, whether or not to hold the pending senatorial elections while the ebola virus is still present in the country. In passing, however, we say that we are all concerned about the dreadful disease in our country. Should the elections be held at this time, or at any other time, as determined the political Branches of Government, it would be advisable for NEC to put guidelines in place to be strictly followed by voters. There should be a realistic process of monitoring and ensuring that such guidelines are followed with consequences of penalty by violators. The adequacy and comprehensiveness of such guidelines would give comfort to voters to turn out in mass, and in a free and fair manner, exercise their franchise, while at the same time ensuring that the health of others would not be compromised. Further, in passing, elections, being what they are, timelines and schedules of activities have been prepared but due to these proceedings were suspended; it is therefore not unreasonable under the circumstance of this case, that lost time would be restored. Again, we must say that the determination is left with the political Branches of the Government. Finally, we address the issue, whether or not prohibition will lie given the factual circumstances of this case. Prohibition as, defined by statute “is a special proceeding to obtain a writ ordering the respondent to refrain from further pursuing a judicial action or proceeding specified therein.” Civil Procedure Law Chapter 16, Section 16.21.3. It is also “that process by which a superior court prevents an inferior court or tribunal possessing judicial or quasi-judicial powers from exceeding its jurisdiction in matters over which it has cognizance, or usurping matters not within its jurisdiction to hear and determine. It is a means of restraint on judicial personnel or bodies to prevent usurpation of judicial power, and its essential function is to confine inferior courts to their proper jurisdiction and to prevent them from acting without or in excess of their jurisdiction; it is preventive in nature rather than corrective.” In accord: The Management of Catholic Relief Services v. Natt et al., 39 LLR 415, 424 (1999), citing BLACKS’ LAW DICTIONARY 1212 (6th ed. 1990). See also Kaba and McCromsy v. Township of Gardnersville et al., 39 LLR 549 (1999); Sawan v. Cooper et al., 39 LLR 598 (1999). These well-established standards lead logically to the question, did the 1st and 2ndrespondents: (a) assume jurisdiction not otherwise ascribed to them; (b) exceed their designated jurisdiction; or (c) in the exercise of their lawful jurisdiction, proceed by wrong rules other than those which should be observed at all times? We answer these questions in the negative. Here, the 1st and 2ndrespondents had statutory and constitutional jurisdiction over the subject matter of the issue raised in this case by virtue of the fact that the Joint Resolution of the Legislature, which became a law of this Republic, mandated them to conduct a special senatorial election on December 16, 2014. Therefore, they did not assume jurisdiction not otherwise ascribed to them. Furthermore, by complying with the mandate of the Joint Resolution and exercising the powers thereby authorized, they were executing executive duties, which Article 53(a) of the Constitution mandates them to execute and were not exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers. comnetitsolutionsinc.org/toj/jupica-vs-nec-2/ 25/27