For the past few days, there have been conflicting interpretations regarding the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Liberia in the “PETITION FOR A Writ Of PROHIBITION” filed by several opposition political parties seeking to halt the holding of the December 8 REFERENNDUM to be conducted by the National Elections Commission (NEC).
Prohibition, as a Noun, from the Verb PROHIBIT, means “A law or order that forbids a certain action. An extraordinary writ issued by an appellate court to prevent a lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction or to prevent a non-judicial officer or entity from exercising a power.”
The Writ was filed by the Collaborating Political Parties (CPP) comprising Unity Party (UP), Liberty Party (LP), Alternative National Congress (ANC) and all Liberia Party (ALP), represented by and through its Chairperson, Alex Cummings.
Also filing as co-petitioners was the Rainbow Alliance, comprising of Victory for Change Party (VCP), Vision for Liberia Transformation (VOLT), Democratic Justice Party (DIP), Movement for Economic Empowerment (MOVEE), Redemption Democratic Congress (RDC), Union for Liberian Democrats (ULD) and the True Whig Party (TWP), represented by and through its National Chairperson, Reginald B. Goodridge, Sr. as co-petitioners.
According to the record, when this case was called for hearing, Counsellors Benedict F. Sannoh, Finley Y. Karngar, Bobby Livingstone and Murphy Kanneh of Sannoh and Sannoh Partners appeared for the petitioners while Counsellors M. Wilkins Wright of the Wright & Associates appeared for 1st Respondent and Counsellor Sayma Syrenius Cephus, Solicitor General and Wesseh A. Wesseh of the Ministry of Justice appeared for the 2nd Respondent.
NEC Chair Lansanah
The record shows that having heard the arguments, reviewed the facts and circumstances revealed by the records and examined the laws controlling, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled:
“That the law extant in this jurisdiction is that: AII persons may join in an action who assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrences or series of transactions or occurrences if any question of law or fact common to all of them would arise in the action:”
“That the petitioners having demonstrated that they are duly registered and certificated by the respondent as two separate and distinct political alliances with common concerns relative to the conduct of the December 8, 2020 Referendum, they have a stake in the matter and can therefore join in an action to assert any right common to them.
“That this Court has held that prohibition will lie where it is established that the respondent has (a) assumed jurisdiction not otherwise ascribed to it, (b) exceeded its designated jurisdiction or (c) in the exercise of its lawful jurisdiction, proceeded by wrong rules other than those which ought to be observed at all times;
“That December 8, 2020, the date to vote in the Referendum, not being “sooner than one year” from September 30, 2019, the date of the Joint Resolution of the Legislature, and being in compliance with the Constitution, the 1st respondent did not assume jurisdiction not ascribed to it, nor did it exceed its jurisdiction, nor proceed by rules other than those which ought to be observed at all times. Hence. prohibition will not lie.
“That Article 92 of the Constitution is devoid of any timeframe for the dissemination of information and awareness on the Referendum. This being the prerogative of the respondents, this Court is not in the position to determine what constitutes sufficient public awareness and information, especially where the petitioners have admitted in their petition that indeed, some public awareness was undertaken by the 1st respondent on the Referendum; consequently, the first respondent s not proceeding by wrong rule; hence, prohibition will not lie; and
“That the act of the 2nd respondent in deviating from the clear language of the Resolution of the Legislature by combining and condensing the eight prepositions into three categories quite contrary to the provision of Article 92 of the Constitution which specifically mandates that each of the eight prepositions be stated separately on the ballot to afford voters the opportunity to exercise their right of choice, the 2 respondent proceeded by the wrong rule. Hence, prohibition will lie.
“WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the alternative writ of prohibition issue is sustained and the peremptory writ prayed for is granted. The NEC is hereby prohibited from printing ballots for the Referendum contrary to Joint Resolution LEG-00212019 of the Legislature and Article 92 of the Constitution.”
Shortly following the court’s ruling, some members of the media, misunderstood the court’s judgment and erroneously reported it, thus creating the impression that the court halted or stopped the exercise set for December 8. Indeed, in all fairness, some of us erred by presenting a different picture to the public than what the court really said. As I peruse the judgment, I got to realize that the confusion was created by some of us in the media.
Specifically, the court’s ruling was based on the printing of the propositions into three categories; something it noted was completely diametrical to the Resolution of the National Legislature on the matter.
On that the court said, “That the act of the 2nd respondent in deviating from the clear language of the Resolution of the Legislature by combining and condensing the eight prepositions into three categories quite contrary to the provision of Article 92 of the Constitution which specifically mandates that each of the eight propositions be stated separately on the ballot to afford voters the opportunity to exercise their right of choice, the 2 respondent proceeded by the wrong rule. Hence, prohibition will lie.”
This portion if accepted by the court is unambiguous and very plain as there is nowhere it suggested or seems to suggest that the exercise of the Referendum should not take place. Its ruling was based on the way the ballots were being printed.
It was a result of this that the Court sustained the alternative Writ of Prohibition issued and called on the NEC to cease from printing ballots for the Referendum contrary to the Joint Resolution LEG-00212019 of the Legislature and Article 92 of the Constitution.”
It can be recalled that prior to proceeding to the court, there were incessant calls for the postponement of the referendum on grounds that there were not much public education and awareness on the proceeding. Some of the institutions that made such calls were the Press Union of Liberia (PUL), the Council of Churches and the Liberian National Bar Association (LNBA).
But on this lack of awareness or education before the high court, it said, “That Article 92 of the Constitution is devoid of any timeframe for the dissemination of information and awareness on the Referendum. This being the prerogative of the respondents, this Court is not in the position to determine what constitutes sufficient public awareness and information, especially where the petitioners have admitted in their petition that indeed, some public awareness was undertaken by the 1st respondent on the Referendum; consequently, the first respondents not proceeding by wrong rule; hence, prohibition will not lie…”
As I close this piece, let me say that the issue now is whether or not NEC will act by separating the propositions as ruled by the court in keeping with the CONSTITUTION as the time approaches for the REFENRENDM.
I Rest My Case.