The Supreme Court of Liberia under the gavel of Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh, says President Joseph Nyuma Boakai made a procedural error by nominating individuals to tenured positions. The Court has ordered the President to immediately withdraw his nominees.
In its ruling on Wednesday, April 24, 2024, Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh said President Boakai proceeded wrongly to nominate other individuals to the respective positions of the Governance Commission, National Identification Registry, Liberia Telecommunications Authority and the Liberia National Lottery Authority.
Speaking on the issues of the violation of rights as enshrined in Article 20(a) of the Liberian Constitution, the Chief Justice ruled that the Executive Branch of Government proceeded to nominate other individuals to the respective positions of the petitioners in disregard of their tenures and without notice (actual or constructive) to the petitioners and/ or the opportunity to be heard in persons or by counsel.
She stressed that tenures as provided for under the law, should be respected. Hence, the petitioners’ rights were violated.
When President Boakai took office in January 2024, he relied on Article 56 of the Liberian Constitution to remove the heads of four autonomous agencies, who the law has granted tenured authorities.
According to Boakai, those tenured officials are members of the Executive Branch of Government therefore, they serve at the will and pleasure of the president.
Article 56 (a) states that “All cabinet ministers, deputy and assistant cabinet ministers, ambassadors, ministers and consuls, superintendents of counties and other government officials, both military and civilian, appointed by the President pursuant to this Constitution shall hold their offices at the pleasure of the President.”
However, the Justices in a unanimous decision ruled that Article 89 of the Liberian Constitution authorized the Legislature to create other agencies as may be necessary for the effective operations of government and enact laws for their governance.
“The Legislature acted within the scope of its authority in enacting laws for its governance including the provisions of tenure,” the Court maintains.
According to the ruling, an act passed by the Legislature is presumed to be constitutional unless the contrary is clearly shown.
The ruling further indicated that at the time of establishing the three autonomous commissions in 1986, the framers of the constitution did not and could not have thought of all the relevant autonomous commissions for the effective operation of government so they empowered the Legislature to act when the need arises to create additional autonomous commissions.
The High Court noted that over the years, as the need for establishing other appropriate commissions or agencies for the effective operation of government became necessary, the Legislature consistent with the power granted it by Article 89 of the Constitution, established all of the agencies from which the petitioners were removed under the Executive Branch of Government and provided tenures for each of the said agencies.
The Chief Justice, who read the opinion on behalf of her colleagues, said the Executive did not state any constitutional or statutory conditions or cause by which the petitioners were being removed from their respective tenure positions.
The Supreme Court: “We are also taken aback by the argument of the Minister of Justice that the Executive Branch of Government action was only at the nomination stage and only created a scare to the petitioners; that the petitioners suffered no harm, injury or embarrassment as they are still performing the duties and responsibilities associated with their respective offices and enjoying all of the benefits associated with the said offices; and that the petitions are based on future events which may not happen, meaning that the petitions were pre-maturely filed.”
Justice Yuoh told the respondents that their decision to tamper with tenured positions was preposterous.
“Firstly, the petitioners are still in in their respective positions only because a stay order was imposed by the Justice in Chambers and not by any magnanimous gestures by the Executive Branch of government,” the Court insists.
The court wonders why the Executive would proceed to nominate individuals to positions that are not available only to create a scare to the individuals already occupying the said positions when there are provisions of the law which clearly set forth procedures for the removal from office of officials of government as the petitioners.
Accordingly, the court said, it upholds the principles of law that there being no showing that any of the conditions under which the present petitioners may be removed from office to warrant the nominations of other persons to their positions by the President of Liberia before expiry of their respective tenures.
The Court noted that the act by the president is not within the pale of the law and expects that the Executive Branch of Government will take cognizance of the opinions rendered by the Court regarding this issue and henceforth act accordingly.
“Wherefore and in view of the foregoing, the alternative writ of prohibition issued by the Justice in Chambers is affirmed and the peremptory writ prayed for us hereby granted. The names of the nominees are ordered withdrawn,” the Supreme Court ruled.
Meanwhile, in similar proceedings, the Supreme Court has denied Professor Wilson Tarpeh his petition for the writ of prohibition.
The High Court added that the petitioner failed to establish by documentary proof that he was chosen from among a list of three persons recommended by the Policy Council to former President George Weah.
