I have decided to jump into the Liberian constitutional fray (but from a different perspective) that is raging on the web like a hurricane. The Liberian Supreme Court recently handed down a decision to grant the president the power to appoint the mayor of Monrovia rather than having the mayor be elected. This has set off a firestorm of debate. In the past, under the 1986 constitution, the mayor of Monrovia had been elected by Monrovians. To those who found the Court’s decision problematic, I say your concern is two decades late. However, I welcome the renewed interest and the vigor I see in this constitutional debate.

I think the current debate misses the most profound and fundamental question: the creation of the 1986 constitution. I think this debate should be about the 1986 constitution and how it came into being. Before I expand on this, I want to digress here and take up the question of the 1847 Constitution. I am of the opinion that the 1847 constitution was an organic document with the great strength of elasticity, which enabled it to conform to the changing times. While it is true that at the time of the drafting of the 1847 constitution the natives were excluded, there was no implicit or explicit clause that specifically barred the natives from participating in the political process. The toxic and inhumane relationship that existed between the settlers and the natives from the early 19th century to the mid-20th century was not sanctioned by the constitution — unlike the American Constitution. That document sanctioned slavery, and when slavery was ended, it sanctioned the separation of the races (Jim Crow Law).

During the mid-1960s, large numbers of native sons and daughters had become well educated and understood that the balance of economic and political power was highly skewed in favor of the elite. Rather than questioning the constitutional basis of this social and economic imbalance, they joined one of two institutions: The True Whig Party (TWP) or the Masonic Society that had absolute and airtight control of power, money, and social standing. From 1944 to 1971, William V.S. Tubman, our longest-serving president, became an “Imperial President.” Under Tubman, Liberia became a one-party Republic that was not sanctioned by the constitution of 1847 — and yet the highly intellectual native sons and daughters never challenged the legality of this one-party government. Instead, they joined in and enjoyed what little benefits were accrued to them, while they continued to whine in bar-rooms and liquor-houses about the injustices and the constitution of 1847. The irony I find here is that these highly native intellectuals studied in the United States during the height of the Civil Rights movement. They witnessed organizations challenging the government in the “court of law” on social injustices, and especially the constitutionality of the Jim Crow Law. Yet they failed to adopt a similar course of action once they returned home. Rather, they went on whining about the social and political structure of Liberia.

In 1980, on April 12, a new day dawned on Liberia and nothing was ever to be the same again as seen from the outset. Liberia had its first and only bloody military coup. The constitution of 1847 was suspended — which is the normal course of action in a military usurpation of power. The pronouncement upon the military seizure of power was “the government was corrupt and had failed to meet the needs of the people.” Nobody mentioned that the constitution of 1847 did explicitly or implicitly violate the basic civil liberties of the masses and their human rights, or that the government had over the years imprisoned and executed scores of political prisoners. In fact the constitution of 1847 was never called into question — until the eve of the general elections that was to restore civilian rule.

Well, Sgt Samuel K. Doe, leader of the so-called military junta that had supposedly killed Tolbert and overthrew the government, reneged on his promise to return the country to civil rule after five years of military rule and go back to the barracks. Instead, he opted to run for the presidency. Doe’s desire to run for the presidency brought into question the constitution of 1847, rather than what the constitution had done to the masses. There was now a call from the military junta for a new constitution. Some of us objected vehemently to the notion of a new constitution, especially during a military regime. We thought that since our constitution was organic, what was needed was a comprehensive review under a civilian government to see what parts of the constitution needed to be amended, since a provision for constitutional amendment was available. We thought the idea to convene a commission (rather than a convention) under the watchful eye of a military dictatorship in order to draft a new constitution set a dangerous precedent. We saw no need to change the constitution just because we had had a bloody military coup and a change of government.

The United States Constitution — upon which Liberia’s Constitution is modeled — was not changed after the Civil War. It was in this vein that we raised the question of a new constitution. We argued further that if the majority of the people deemed it necessary to have a new constitution, then it should be done under a civilian transitional government, with each county represented by delegates to the convention. To our surprise,— our revered political deities Amos Sawyer and Henry Kessely were salient and in fact became the chairs for the constitutional commission appointed by the military junta. This was a serious blow to our modern understanding of constitutional creation. When these two intellectual political giants did not raise opposition (especially under the environment in which this was to take place) to the drafting of a new constitution under a military dictator, we knew the country was headed for protracted chaos.

After two decades of chaos, we now have relative peace and a civilian elected government that is governed by the constitution of 1986. And the first major Supreme Court decision has raised a constitutional debate. People are asking to review the notes and original drafts of the commission but they cannot be found. I can read the Federalist Papers today and get some sense of how the American Constitution (a constitution that is more than 200 years old) evolved. Yet I cannot find the notes and original drafts of my constitution that is less than two decades old and one of the chairmen is alive. This is a travesty. Men like Amos Sawyer and others whom we have come worship have done a grave disservice to us all, especially the Republic. The constitution is the fundamental law that protects our civil liberties. It protects us from unlawful government intrusion without impunity. It gives us the right to elect our representatives and leaders. Above all, it gives us the right to freely express our views without fear of government coercion or intimidation. If we cannot read and learn its derivations, then we are in a constitutional crisis.

---

© 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