Monrovia – The latest citation issued by the Supreme Court to the leadership of the House of Representatives for a hearing on the writ of prohibition filed on behalf of Associate Justice Kabineh Ja’neh against his impeachment by the House is slated on Wednesday, August 22.
The full bench of the Court request that the House’s leadership be represented by its legal counsel at the hour of 2:00 PM.
Reads the citation: Dear Counselor Arthur Johnson, In Re: His honor Kabineh M.
Ja’neh, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Liberia petitioner versus the honorable House of Representatives of the National Legislature by and thru its Speaker Bhofal Chambers respondent in the petition for the writ of prohibition.”
The citations continue: “By directive of the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia you are hereby mandated to file your brief in the above-captioned case on or before the end of the workday on Tuesday, August 21, 2018, signed Atty. Sam Mamulu Clerk Supreme Court.”
The writ of prohibition was filed by Cllr. Arthur Johnson along with four other lawyers against the pending bill of impeachment sent to the House by lawmakers of Montserrado County Acarious Gray and Thomas Fallah both of the ruling Coalition for Democratic Change (CDC).
In the two lawmakers’ bill of impeachment, they have accused Associate Justice Ja’neh of proven misconduct, abuse of public office, wanton abuse of judicial discretion, fraud, misuse of power and corruption.
But Cllr. Johnson and the four other lawyers rejecting the impeachment counter-argued that the Constitution of Liberia confers jurisdiction on the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceeding but that should not be done with the violation of any constitutional provisions with specific and particular references to Article (20) (a) 71 and 73.
This is the second time a citation is coming from the Supreme Court to the leadership of the House over the writ of prohibition against the pending impeachment proceeding.
The first was by Justice-In-Chamber Sie-Nyene- Youh ordering the lawmakers to pause the impeachment process and appear before her on August 18, 2018, at the hour of 9:00.
But the lawmakers rejected the order, citing Article 43 of the Constitution, which outlines separation of power among the three branches of government.
Despite the lawmakers’ refusal to honor Associate Justice Youh’s order, it is unclear whether they would appear this time around.
However, a legal practitioner, asking for anonymity, says the lawmakers’ refusal to honor the Supreme Court citation will lead the high court with no other alternative but to render judgment.
At the same time, former Chief Justice Cllr. Gloria Musa Scott, speaking on the issue, said the saga is interesting.
She expressed hopes that at the end of the day the Constitution will prevail and “not only the narrow interpretation but the spirit and intent on the provision of the constitution”.
According to her interpretation of the constitution, it is assumed that the Supreme Court will be sober, reflective, and be the bedrock of the democracy that the country has.
“The Supreme Court or Judiciary is not to be flamboyant, reserved, set apart – it is taken out of political issues and the check and balance here are that the Legislature comes up with the law, Judiciary interprets the law, and the executive enforces the law.”
She recalled as chief justice that at the program she was always told by Legislators that they are the first branch of government and so they should be given a seat before her.
“And I will say you may be – you the first branch but you need to ask yourself the question which branch is the most powerful branch and one old lawyer Cllr. Lawrence Morgan told me that the judiciary has the power of Joshua who made the sun and moon to stand still.”
Former Justice Scott said the power of the judiciary is expected to be used with a lot of sober reflection, and that their discretion cannot just be exercised, adding that, “that’s why there is nowhere in the law the court is told when to render decision but, the power and judgement and wisdom of the Supreme Court is left with them”.
“The court can have a case and decide not just to say anything because the court in its wisdom has looked way down the road and has seen that this problem will be cured by time,” she added.
However, Cllr. Scott said there are opinions from the court when issues are political in nature, the court will decide not delve into political questions.
“Most of the political questions are questions that deal with the direct constitutional mandate of the Legislature.”