Previous 25 / 30 Next

25 valuable principle which we have upheld in a long line of cases. [IBM v Tulay, 33LLR 105, 112 (1985); Wilson v Firestone Plantations Company Plantations Company and the Board of General Appeals, 34 LLR 14 (1986); The Middle East Trading Company V Chase Manhattan Bank, 34 LLR 419, 429-430 (1986); Expressing Printing House, Inc. v Reeves, 5 LLR 455, 464 (1988); Mensah v Wilson, 37 LLR 656, 662 (1994); Salala Rubber Corporation v. Garlawolu, 39 LLR 609, 616-617 (1999); Republic v the leadership of the Liberian National Bar Association, 40LLR 635 (2001); Snowe v Some Members of the House of representatives, led by Honourable Kettehkumehn Murray, Supreme Court Opinion, October Term, 2006, decided January 29, 2007); Liberia Telecommunications Authority v West Africa Telecommunications, Inc., Supreme Court Opinion, March Term 2009, decided July 23, 2009]”. See also Abu Bana Kamara v. The National Elections Commission, Supreme Court Opinion, March Term, A. D. 2017, delivered July 17, 2017. As noted before the principle articulated by this Court in the Kamara case is not new to our jurisprudence; it dates back as far as the inception of the Republic. In this Court’s still most monumental Opinion, handed down in the case Wolo v. Wolo, 5 LLR 435 (1937), this is how the Supreme Court addressed the issue of due process: “The essential elements of due process of law are notice, and an opportunity to be heard and to defend in a n o rde rly pro c ee ding a da pte d to the na ture o f the c a se . In fa c t o ne o f the m o s t fa m o us and pe r ha ps the most often quoted definition of due process of law is that of Daniel Webster in his argument in the Dartmouth College case, in which he declared that by due process of law was meant 'a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.' Somewhat similar is the statement that it is a rule as old as the law that no one shall be personally bound until he has had his day in court, by which is meant, until he has been duly cited to appear, and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity wants all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and oppression and can never be upheld where justice is fairly administered. 6 R.C.L. Constitutional Law, 8:442.” Wolo v. Wolo, 5 LLR 423 (1937). Since that Opinion, given while the 1847 Constitution was in effect, our forebears have held it sacred to the Republic, such that in the new Constitution, adopted by the people of Liberia in 1985 and which became effective in January 1986, the people of Liberia not only upheld and reinforced the principle; they elaborated even more on the principle and its value, believing that much of the survival of the nation depended on the rigid adherence by all of the nation’s institutions and functionaries to the principle. The National Elections Commission is no exception. Accordingly, we hold herein, the same as we did in the Kamara case, recently decided, that the National Elections Commission must mandatorily adhere to this principle in every case in which it makes a determination as to whether an aspirant will

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