Monrovia – Liberty Party’s standard bearer, Cllr. Charles Brumskine, has condemned the impeachment proceeding for justices of the Supreme Court, alleging that the process was concocted by lawmakers loyal to Vice President Joseph Boakai and Speaker Emmanuel Nuquay who are both standard bearer and vice standard bearer, respectively of the Unity Party.
Three of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court including his Honor Kabineh Ja’ Neh, Her Honor Jamesetta Howard-Wollokollie and his Honor Philips A.Z. Banks, III are expected to appear before the House Judicial Committee on Monday, August 14, 2017 to show cause why they must not be impeached.
The impeachment proceeding was initiated by Senators Dan Morais, Peter Coleman and Jim Tornolah, and Representatives George Mulbah and Numene Bartekwah.
It was instigated by the Bench’s unanimous opinion on Judgment in the case Harrison Karnwea and Liberty Party vs. the National Elections Commission in which the High Court ruled that the Elections Commission erred by denying Mr. Karnwea the right to contest the October elections as vice standard bearer of the Liberty Party.
In the June 20 ruling, the Supreme Court opined that though Mr. Karnwea violated sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the National Code of Conduct, his violation was not egregious as he substantially complied by resigning after it ruled that the National Code of Conduct is constitutional in the Selena Mappy-Polson vs the Government of Liberia case. The NEC was ordered by the Supreme Court to reverse its decision on Karnwea.
But the lawmakers believe Supreme Court’s ruling in the Karnwea’s case was erroneous, noting that the Bench rather ascribed unto themselves the power to make laws instead of interpreting the law in that case.
According to Cllr. Brumskine, the lawmakers’ action is contemptuous of the Supreme Court and is also an attempt to subvert the system of governance in the country.
In a press statement on Friday, the Liberty Party’s political said, “when one opens the Constitution of Liberia, the first Article of the Section on the Judiciary, Article 65, informs that a decision of the Supreme Court is final; it is neither subject to an appeal to any other branch of government, nor can the decision be reviewed by any other branch of government—not the Executive, not the Legislature.
But our Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen have decided that they are above the Constitution, the fundamental law of our country, the law that holds the four corners of our nation together.
They have, therefore, summoned the Justices to appear before them to be impeached and tried, for what they have concluded was the wrong interpretation of the Code of Conduct.
Stated differently, they want to review the decision of the Supreme Court, and remove from office the Justices, because their understanding of the law is different from that of the Supreme Court.”
Cllr. Brumskine noted that if the Legislature believes that the interpretation given the law by the Supreme Court is not what they intended when the law was enacted, the redress is not impeachment.
The Legislature, he said, should then enact another law overriding the opinion of the Supreme Court, and restating their intent in the new law, and hope that it would pass judicial scrutiny.
He also wondered why Chief Justice Korkpor and Justice Yuoh were not also targeted for impeachment.
Cllr. Brumskine: “Reasonable conclusion as to Chief Justice Korkpor—if the Chief Justice is the subject of an impeachment trial, the President of the Senate, Vice President Boakai, would have to preside.
But even for the Boakai-Nuquay clique, that would have been much. So they decided to give the Chief Justice a temporary reprieve, only to preside over the demise of his colleagues, and go after him later.
Why not? After all, the Chief Justice also signed the opinion; the reason for which the three Justices are being impeached.”
He noted that he would be disappointed if any of the Justices of the Supreme Court were to appear before Legislature to answer to the impeachment. “The Justices know too well that any, ‘Willful disobedience or resistance willfully offered to its lawful mandate’ may result in criminal contempt, which could be a felony. And the felons should be dealt with in accordance with law,” he said.