Previous 17 / 30 Next

17 Section 5.1 of the Code of Conduct, which states: All Officials appointed by the President of the Republic of Liberia shall not (a) engage in political activities, canvass or contest for electoral offices; (b) use Government facilities, equipment or resources in support of partisan or political activities; (c ) serve on a campaign team of any political party, or the campaign of any independent candidate.” The above assertion was never refuted by the appellants Harrison Karnwea and the Liberty Party. In fact, it is matter of public knowledge that at such occasions wherein individuals are transferring their membership from one political institution to another, political speeches are made which usually echoed the position that the new institution serves the best interest of the public. In the mind of this Court, said action was an act of engaging in political activities contrary to the plain meaning of section 5.1 of the Code of Conduct which prohibits all officials appointed by the President of the Republic of Liberia from (a) engaging in political activities, canvass or contest for electoral offices; (b) using Government facilities, equipment or resources in support of partisan or political activities; (c) serving on a campaign team of any political party, or the campaign of any independent candidate.” This act of canvassing for a political party while serving as Managing Director was therefore contrary to the Code. Co-appellant Harrison S. Karnwea, having been affected by the Code of Conduct was in violation of the Code when he convened the press conference on the 14th day of February and declared that the Liberty Party was the best option for the Liberian people while he still served as Managing Director of the Forestry Development Authority. While it is true that at the time of the press conference, the Code of Conduct was under a constitutional challenge and that had the Supreme Court adjudged that the Code was unconstitutional, he would have been excused or exonerated from compliance with the affected provisions of the Code, the declaration by the Supreme Court that the Code was constitutional meant that by the press conference Co-appellant Harrison Karnwea was in violation of the Code. This brings us to the next issue which we believe, although not highlighted by the appellants, requires the attention of the Court. That issue

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

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Karnwea v. National Elections Commission

Primary Documents

Notifications