Monrovia – Lawyers representing the National Elections Commission (NEC) have filed a motion for dismissal of the electoral fraud case currently before the Supreme Court for review and final ruling.
Report by Lennart Dodoo, [email protected]
The NEC motion for dismissal is predicated upon the inclusion of all representative candidates as party to the case, but failed to make the appropriate payment for representative contestants before hearing election complaints.
“Movant says Section 6.8 of the New Elections Law of 1986 requires contestants to ‘enter into recognizance for payment of costs incurred on the appeal in the following amounts: ‘(a) with respect to the election of a President or Vice President, the Liberian dollar equivalent of five thousand United States Dollars (US$5,000.00)’ and ‘(c) with respect to the election of a member of the House of Representatives, the Liberian dollar equivalent of Two Thousand United States dollars (US$2,000.00),’” the motion stated.
According to the NEC, there are 67 candidates of the Liberty Party and the cost of paying for each of them would amount to US$134,000.
NEC noted that only US$5,000 has been paid by the Liberty Party with respect to the appeal by Charles Brumskine and Harrison Karnwea, Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates at the October 10, 2017 elections.
The National Elections Commission noted that from the inception of the proceedings, beginning with the complaint, up to the announcement of appeal from the Final Ruling/Judgment of the Board of Commissioners to Supreme Court, co-complainants: “all representative candidates of Liberty Party” have always been parties.
The NEC argued that assuming without admitting, that “all representative candidates of Liberty Party” were wrongly joined or miss-joined, they remain parties until they are dropped by Motion of any party or on the initiative of the Court.
“Movant says no amount has been paid for “all representative candidates of Liberty Party”.
“Like an appeal bond, the amount paid is grossly inadequate to cover the appeal; thus the entire recognizance, as to 1st Appellants, is a fit and proper subject for dismissal,” the motion noted.