Monrovia – The only two female Justices on the five-person Supreme Court Bench have objected to the opinion empowering the House of Representatives (HOR) to proceed with impeachment proceeding against Associate Justice Kabineh Ja’neh.
Report by Bettie K. Johnson-Mbayo, [email protected]
Associate Justices Jamesetta Howard Wolokolie and Sie-A-Nyene Yuoh said the majority opinion was in error and raised arguments that the House did not raise for itself.
The duo said the communication from the HOR still remains before the Supreme Court as it has never been withdrawn by them.
The two justices said the majority opinion denounces the insolent content of the letter sent to the high court of last resort, stating that it is highly improper and irregular that the court expects the HOR (respondent) being a part of the Legislature and not an ordinary party.
“Which is held at a high standard to set an example and give direction to the general public, would accord respect to the judiciary as provided by law.”
Justices Yuoh and Wolokolie further that though the majority said it was a bad example set by those who make the laws, a default judgment should have complied in this case, but the majority ignored it.
“Thus, notwithstanding, the fact that the HOR did not file a formal return to the petition for prohibition even though it was duly informed, we for a different reason supports the high court to hear the petition and to make decision as to whether the petition presented legal reasons to warrant the issuance of the peremptory writ.
“We are in disbelief that our majority colleagues would evoke and rely upon laws precedent applicable to the lower courts. The law and cases regarding default judgment referred to by majority are inapplicable to the high court since this court cannot take evidence so as to make an imperfect judgment.”
The two justices, in their dissenting, further said the court’s decision to conduct hearings in the petition was based on the constitutional issues raised in the petition and for which the matter was forwarded to the Full Bench for determination.
On the Ministry of Justice representing the HOR as was accepted by the majority, the two justices said the reason for the Ministry to appear was to be on the side of the law and file a legal brief.
“We believe that the majority affirmation supporting the Justice Ministry’s alleged obligation to represent the respondent HOR and its reliance on Grace Kpann’s case in giving support is erroneous and legal faulty.”
They also maintained that the amended brief filed by MOJ to represent the HOR should have been stricken from the record of the court.
“We disagreed with the majority that the MOJ cannot represent the HOR against the petitioner and that the HOR is not legally before the court. The court should have limited itself to the interpretation of those constitutional issued raised in the petitioner’s petition.”
The two justices said the law extent that courts cannot raise issues not brought before it.
The majority said the petition was premature, but in dissenting, the two females said their ruling raised issues not brought before the court.
They said the issued raised by the petitioners was the HOR in violation of Articles, 73, 71, 43 and 20(a) of the 1986 Constitution in its bid to impeach him.
“We believe that this court should have limited its interpretation to these provisions of the Constitution. But the majority has gone through great length to discuss the premature filing of the petition.”
According to Justices Yuoh and Wolokolie, it was erroneous for the court to use the 2017 impeachment case that was not decided by the high court.
The duo expressed dissatisfaction with the position taken by the majority on the procedure for impeachment in the 2017 scenario and the present scenario.
“The issue of judicial privilege has not been addressed by the majority but the majority put themselves out to represent the respondent (HOR), who has shown no regards to the Supreme Court by its letter to the court when it raised the defense of prematurity of the petitioner’s petition.
“We submit therefore that in the absence of the amendment of the procedure for impeachment proceedings as required by Article 43 of the Constitution, prohibition will lie to prohibit ongoing acts and threats of future acts are ultra vires.”
The two cited Mary Broh v. Honorable House of Representatives, Supreme Court opinion, October Term 2013.
“Also, prohibition will lie where there is an infringement on the judicial privilege of a judicial officer, in this case, the petitioner as provided by Article 73 of the 1986 Constitution.
The majority opinion was signed by Chief Justice Francis Korkpor, newly appointed Justice Joseph Nagbe, and Ad-hoc Justice J. Boima Kontoe.