Previous 27 / 30 Next

27 the Legislature intended that only the penalties expressly stipulated in the Code, being the following: (a) Dismissal; (b) Removal from office in public interest; (c) Reprimand; (d) Fine or making good of the loss or damage of public property/assets; (e) Demotion (reduction in ranking); (f) Seizure and forfeiture to the State of any property acquired from abuse of office; and (g) Interdiction/suspension from duty with half pay, were applicable to violations of the Code, stated that the Legislature must also have intended that disbarment or disqualification should be one of the penalties to address the evil which the Code intended to cure. Thus, it was this Court, in its interpretation of the Code of Conduct and its declaration of constitutionality of the Code in the Polson case, that held that the intent of the Legislature was not to limit the sanctions or penalties to the range stated in the Code but to also include as part of that range the disqualification from contesting for an elective public office. By the Opinion of this Court, therefore, disbarment, which was reasoned by this Court to be a part of the range of penalties contemplated by the Legislature, was only one of the penalties to be applied by the National Elections Commission, not the only penalty available in the case of a violation of the Code by an aspirant. Indeed, the Opinion of this Court in the Polson case was very clear that the application of this most severe penalty should only be resorted to by the enforcement agency where it was demonstrated before the NEC [at the time of the Opinion and prior to the amendment made by the Legislature to the Code the Ombudsman Commission], after a due process hearing, that the violation was of an egregious nature. The determination of what penalty should be imposed could only have been made where there was a due process hearing so that the aspirant is given the opportunity to explain his or her conduct. In the instant case, there is no evidence in the records that due process was accorded to the appellants by the Nomination Scrutiny Review Body of the National Elections Commission or that the recommendation of the Nomination Scrutiny Review Body was taken to the Board of Commissioners of the National Elections Commission for a due process hearing and final determination by the Board, as required by law. We reiterate that this is the standard which the Respondent National

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