IPNEWS-Monrovia: The media reports that the Supreme Court of Liberia has denied the beleaguered Executive Chairperson of the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission’s (LACC) petition to declare some provisions of the amended and Restated Act Establishing the LACC unconstitutional. The ruling means, the new Act calls for the appointment of a new Board of Commissioners will be upheld.
LACC Executive Chairperson, Cllr. Edwin Kla Martin some time ago requested the Supreme Court to declare Sections 16.1 and 16.2 which he argued amounted to a breach of contract since the government was in error in dissolving his tenured position and then creating the same null and void.
The case reached the full bench of the Supreme Court after former Chamber Justice, Yussif D. Kaba, sent it to the full bench without ruling on its merits. Kaba’s decision was based on the fact that the case was constitutional and needed the interpretation of the Supreme Court.
The restated law has been slammed by civil society organizations, opposition senators, and Martin, terming it dangerously “repealed” with the intent of undermining gains being made at LACC to expose alleged corrupt officials.
While these critics have said opinions, President George Weah and proponents of the Act have touted it as a long-overdue reform that broadens the area of operation and provides the new LACC direct and immediate prosecution power, which the existing LACC had, with limitations.
Martin’s lawyer, in his legal action, claimed that the 2022 amendment of the 2008 LACC Act amounts to a breach of contract as the government was in error to dissolve his tenured position and recreate the same.
The petition further contended that Section 6.8 of the old LACC Act, provides that a commissioner “shall hold office upon good behavior and should be removed from office by the President for any gross breach of duty, misconduct in office, or any proven act of corruption.”
According to the application, this was not the case, further noting that the statute should be repealed since it impedes the efforts of the LACC and other integrity organizations to discover corrupt officials.
The Ministry of Justice nevertheless, refuted the assertion, asking the Supreme Court to reject the lawsuit on grounds that it questioned the legitimacy of the Legislature’s ability to pass and change laws without limitation – and that any decision to the contrary would establish a dangerous precedent.
The Ministry of Justice’s position was countered with a claim that the legislative enactment of the LACC Act was approved without any proven or legitimate cause, which “clearly violates the petitioner’s rights to the proper process of law as provided for under Article 20(a) of the 1986 Constitution.”
Martin’s lawyer equally quoted Article 21 of the 1986 Constitution, stating that “no person shall be made subject to any law or punishment which was not in effect at the time of the commission of an offense, nor shall the Legislature enact any bill of attainder or ex post facto law.”
Regardless of these arguments put forth, the Supreme Court, in its decision on Tuesday, January 26, denied Cllr. Martin’s request.
According to the court’s judgment, having carefully examined the facts contained in the records, listening to arguments on both sides, and considering the relevant laws thereto, the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) being a creature of the Legislative.
Branch of Government, the Legislature has the unquestionable power to amend, modify or abolish the LACC as deemed expedient in the interest of the State.
The court further noted that the Legislature action cannot be said to violate the Constitution.
It further noted that the petitioner and other Commissioners still occupy and maintain their respective positions and enjoy all of the associated benefits and immunities cannot be said to have been removed from office, as the transitional tenure provisions of sections 16.1 and 16.2 are futuristic, for which the petitioner’s petition is prematurely filed.
Nonetheless, the Court said should it become necessary to terminate the services of the petitioner and others similarly situated before the expiration of their contractual rights, the sanctity of contract as enshrined in the Constitution should be given due consideration; and that no public official has vested right to a public office except for those officers or offices that are clearly and expressly protected by the Constitution, which it said, is not the case in the present petition. Courtesy: FPA
