8/26/2020 Jupica vs Nec – Supreme Court of Liberia 15.And also because as to the entire petition, 1st Respondent says that the Legislature is empowered to enact the Elections laws and that the performance of that duty and the subsequent compliance therewith cannot be construed as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. Prohibition therefore will not lie. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case Ware v. Republic decided March Term 2012, Justice Banks speaking for the court said: ’’This Court has held that prohibition is the proper remedial process … to restrain administrative tribunal from taking action in the case over which it has no jurisdiction or where it acts beyond its jurisdiction.” 1st Respondent says that this not being the case, prohibition will not lie. 16.Further to count (7) above, the Honorable Supreme Court has said that three things must be present to justify the issuance of a writ of prohibition: 1. i. The respondent against whom it is directed has or is about to exercise judicial or quasijudicial powers; 1. ii. That the exercise of such power by such respondent is unauthorized by law; and, iii. That it will result to injury for which there is no other adequate remedy. 1st Respondent submits that neither of the above actions has been performed by it and hence, prohibition will not lie against it. 17.And also because as to actions (1-4) of the petition, 1st Respondent says that same are mere recitals of various articles of the constitution which do not constitute grounds for the issuance of a writ for prohibition. 1st Respondent submits that the power of the people to remove a public official when elected is circumscribed by the Constitution; specifically in this case Article 46 thereof. Actions 1- 4 have no relevance and should therefore be ignored and denied. 18.That as to action 5 of the petition, 1st Respondent is to elect senators as provided under Article 83 (a) and Section 1.2(f) of the New Elections Law and therefore it is a lawful duty which is not subject to prohibition or subject to be prohibited. Action 5 is misleading and therefore should be ignored. 19.And also because as to actions 6, 7, and 8 same constitute a repetition of various counts of similar petition and therefore same should be ignored and the entire petition be dismissed. 20. And also because as to action 9 of the petition, 1st Respondent says that the Constitution provides under Article 86 that the President may in consultation with the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore declare a state of emergency where there is a threat. The Article further provides that the President thereto may suspend or affect certain rights, freedom and guarantee in the Constitution. That authority is constitutional and the exercise thereof is within parlance of the law. Action 9 therefore is merely intended to mislead this Honorable Court. 21. And also because as to actions 10, 11 and 12, 1st Respondent says that same is a mere restatement of the facts and constitute no basis for the issuance of a writ of prohibition. Said comnetitsolutionsinc.org/toj/jupica-vs-nec-2/ 18/27