Few days ago I read articles from Messrs Kollie, Nyenuh and Sloh on the Listserv regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on article 54 b. While it is not my intention to be a latecomer and then try to reinvent the wheel, particularly where important issues such constitutional matters are discussed, it is compelling to comment on the recent Supreme Court’s ruling since it appears to have bigger consequences than its appears. At face value, one might be tempted to relegate the ruling as a mere issue surrounding the election of city mayors. When one, however, looks at the implications of the opinion from the viewpoint of Presidential Executive Powers, then it makes sense to think that the ruling amounts to nothing less than a license for dictatorship.

The debate about the ambiguity of the Article 54 b is one that must not be taken lightly. Let us not be carried away by the fact that ambiguity has been used to characterize the discussion. Realizing the negative effect and potential danger of throwing enormous power into the hands of the president, it is important to view other areas of the constitution to determine where the Court has violated its interpretative role under this circumstance. To specifically address, it is fair to say a big no; the constitution is not ambiguous on the issue of mayor’s elections. What it did was to give Liberia the option to decide on the path of the country. This is where the Supreme Court as an interpreter of the law, comes in. In its interpretative role, the Court cannot opine to the extent that the fundamental principles of the Land are compromised, nor shall it dissuade the nation from its progressive and strategic course. One of such progressive departure from the past includes the desire to be liberated from mistakes and preparing for a better future. So in its review function of every law passed by the land, the Court must do so with due prudence, with the view of determining whether such laws are consistent with all aspects of the constitution, including its fundamental principles and the very reason for writing the constitution. Ironically however, the Jonny Lewis Court, in my view, has at least, reneged on this noble responsibility in two instances, with surprising impunity. The first was during the fight to define “City”, in the case involving Representative Edwin Snowe, where the court remained silent on this crucial aspect of the case; and the other is now, where the Court has taken a step that has the potential to drift the country backward. The problem that keeps lingering now is whether an opinion by the Court, in the situations such as this can be revisited, under an eminent domain proceeding. An eminent domain, according to dictionary definition is the right of the government to take action in the interest of the state. What if it is the people who want to make an apparatus of the government to act properly, where does eminent domain stand? I will leave that to the lawyers of Liberia to decide.

Of particular importance though, all indications and pronouncements, even from President Sirleaf herself, suggest that past presidents have been enormously powerful to the detriment of good governance and greater participation. Supported by obvious mistakes in the constitution, the president was allowed to accrue enormous power unto themselves to the extent that the presidency was dubbed “presidential chieftaincy”. Under the exercise of presidential powers, the president made all appointments, decided on almost every executive matter and has the prerogative to decide on when to exercise certain aspects of the laws (the revenue and finance law for example). This essentially made the president very powerful to the extent that a constitutional dictator was established in Liberia. A president who therefore sought to exercise the constitution to its fullest, invariably became a dictator and very fearful. Consequently, this level of poor administrative discretion and abuse on the part of the power apparatus, not only led to the overthrow of the TWP government, but to a 14 year civil war that took the lives of more than 200,000 people and brought Liberia an unprecedented division, tribal hatred and acute peer resentment. As a means of addressing this acute social problem, visionaries who wrote the constitution realized that a problem was eminent and therefore decided to write in the Preamble of the Constitution, thus: “Realizing from many experiences during the course of our national existence which culminated in the Revolution of April 12, 1980, when our Constitution of July 26, 1847 was suspended…”. This clause in the constitution, in my view, is attempting to ensure that the nation does not return to its ugly past, thereby guaranteeing a progressive path for the country.

True, Article 54 (d) of the Constitution states that the President shall appoint “county officials and officials of the political sub-division”. The constitution specifically named which officials the president may appoint. Agreeing with Mr. Nyenue, Article 54(d) does not state which one of those other officials may be appointed by the president. So rather than be dragged into an endless discussion of the ruling in itself, let us look at where the opinion of the Court amounts to legislation, which is a violation of its function.

In my opinion, the interpretation role of the Court is to explain and not to legislate. To make is an addition, which is the function of the legislature. The fact that the Court chose to opined that mayors are appointed amounts to something new, which is an addition and not interpretation. An interpretation is to explain, defining issues consistent with laws, practices, values and the strategic interest of the Country. In my view, this decision is political rather than judicial, a reason to announce a “CHECK”.

Furthermore, the Court’s ruling violates a fundamental principle stated in Article 4 b of the constitution. 4b provides that the government shall “preserve, protect and promote positive Liberian…..cultural values which are compatible with public policy and national progress. It has been a culture of Liberia to elect mayors, which was a policy consistent with political growth and “national progress”. Protecting cultural values and ensuring national progress among the fundamental principles of the constitution that are required to be protected; Article 4b. By reason of the Supreme Court’s ruling, is it stating that the election of mayors is against “national progress” and should therefore be abolished? Is the court suggesting that the goal to decentralize government (at least at the discussion level) be abandoned? Certainly not and the country must not be returned to its ugly past as the Court would want it to be. Let it be clear that all professionals of Liberia have the responsibility to positively contribute to the reconstruction of Liberia. The misuse of one’s profession to satisfy selfish agenda, particularly in making national decision is morally and politically irresponsible. This Supreme Court’s ruling was just that.

---

The author: Mr. Francis K. Zazay, is an accountant and tax practitioner by training and profession, and a community worker by endowment and disposition. Mr. Zazay’s recent hobbies include writing analytical assessment of finance and economic issue. Mr. Zazay can be reached at fzazay@aol.com.

---

© 2008 by The Perspective
E-mail: editor@theperspective.org

To Submit article for publication, go to the following URL: http://www.theperspective.org/submittingarticles.html