![\"\"](\"https:\/\/independentprobe.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/Edwin-Martin-2-1024x944.jpg\")
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\u2019s decision was based on the fact that the case was constitutional and needed the interpretation of the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
The restated law has been slammed by civil society organizations, opposition senators, and Martin, terming it dangerously \u201crepealed\u201d<\/em> with the intent of undermining gains being made at LACC to expose alleged corrupt officials.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Martin\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n The petition further contended that Section 6.8 of the old LACC Act, provides that a commissioner \u201cshall 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n According to the application, this was not the case, further noting that the statute should be repealed since it impedes the efforts of the LACC and other integrity organizations to discover corrupt officials.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s ability to pass and change laws without limitation \u2013 and that any decision to the contrary would establish a dangerous precedent.<\/p>\n The Ministry of Justice\u2019s position was countered with a claim that the legislative enactment of the LACC Act was approved without any proven or legitimate cause, which \u201cclearly violates the petitioner\u2019s rights to the proper process of law as provided for under Article 20(a) of the 1986 Constitution.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Martin\u2019s lawyer equally quoted Article 21 of the 1986 Constitution, stating that \u201cno 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Regardless of these arguments put forth, the Supreme Court, in its decision on Tuesday, January 26, denied Cllr. Martin\u2019s request.<\/p>\n According to the court\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The court further noted that the Legislature action cannot be said to violate the Constitution.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s petition is prematurely filed.<\/p>\n