Voice of Liberia

An analysis of a serious constitutional error…

By Hon. Rufus D. Neufville

Member, House of Representatives

Republic of Liberia

Her Excellency, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, obligated to appear before Liberia’s 52^nd National Legislature, fulfilled that constitutional requirement on 25^th January 2010 when she addressed the bicameral body jointly seated in its fifth session. Consistent with the sacred traditions of the country’s democratic values, the gathering presented a well-pronounced purpose for the President to deliver her annual message on the ‘State of the nation’ and its people.

The National Legislature, fully conscious of its check-and-balance duties in keeping with the doctrine of the separation of power, awaited with increased enthusiasm as President Sirleaf mounted the rostrum. While the Liberian leader approached the podium of the joint chamber, Lawmakers were not only high-spirited about the dignity of the moment, but were equally excited that the  program was being broadcast live to every slum and shantytown where the majority of the population would presumably gather around electronic transmitters to listen to the state of their security, economy, foreign policy, and democracy. In simpler terms, hear their leader make progress or impediment reports in the execution of her assigned duties and responsibilities.

Besides other observations during the President’s democratic procedure, the august body noticed a very unusual trend adopted by the President when she declared her intentions to stand as a ‘Formidable candidate in the 2011 general and Presidential Elections.’  In reference to the foregoing political verbose and the double-edged intellectual swords that have pierced and defended it, my literature here does not seek to question the right of the incumbent to seek reelection. From all intent and purposes, Chapter VI Article 50 of the constitution of the Republic of Liberia provides unquestionable basis for Mrs. Sirleaf and any other Liberian leader to seek a second term at personal discretion. Howbeit, my intellectual mind and pen skills will endeavor to unearth the unconstitutionality of the occasion utilized by the President to promote her personal political agenda, and the agenda of the ruling Unity party. In the ensuing efforts, I will strive to enlighten that good governance and democracy is honorably advanced when the true political patriot erects a pillar between personal ambitions from that of the agenda of the state. 

In subsequence, and to the advantage of the curious constitutional scholar who may not readily trace a copy of our basic political document, the sacrosanct spirit and letter of Article 58 of the 1986 constitution of the Republic of Liberia is quoted as follows:

“The President shall, on the fourth working Monday in January of each year, present the administration’s Legislative program for the ensuing session, and shall once a year report to the Legislature on the state of the Republic. In presenting the economic condition of the Republic the report shall cover expenditure as well as income.”

Of interest, this self-explicit constitutional clause exists in one of the clearest Articles of our organic law where both the legal and grammatical interpretations point in the same direction.   To put the grammatical debate first, it is important to stress that framers of the 1986 Liberian constitution relative to the Article under examination did not insert words or phrases without intent. In fact, in its full context, this Article may be considered as one of the crucial pillars of our Republican democracy ensuring that the Commander-In-Chief reports to the electorates, through their elected Representatives. This emphasis is unambiguously spelled out through the usage of the instructing syntax ‘Shall’. Hence, all instances of the thrice used ‘Shall’ in the clause connote a mandatory responsibility, not a discretionary requirement. To summon the legal argument, we see this indisputable fact well-versed in the eighth edition of the Black’s Law Dictionary, which provides a vivid analysis of the word (Shall) as connoting a ‘Duty to perform’. Under strict standards of drafting, according to these erudite legal scholars, it is the mandatory sense that drafters typically intend, and Courts characteristically uphold in their ruling determinations of the sort.

Likewise, the framers of our constitution were not oblivious to controversies that would follow certain constitutional interpretations years after they were enacted, and so, with their authority and understanding of the appropriate application of words, they avoided certain words while utilizing others in unique clauses. Optional syntaxes like ‘Will, may, should, could, etc were largely avoided in critical areas. By this legal and grammatical analysis, we now easily realize that the intent of Article 58 is to mandate the President to make a report on the ‘State of the nation’, nothing beyond. Unlike Article 59, 58 is not open for discretion and volition.

Despite the salvo of blind justifications emanating from the President’s supporters on this issue, the facts cannot be contended that the second Monday in January of each year is distinctively set aside for every citizen irrespective of political party membership, religion, creed, sex, tribe or color; it is a day set aside for the promulgation of the interests of all of Liberia as a nation-state. It is therefore a stab in the back of the nurturing democratic sacrifice for the President to politically rob a constitutionally guided forum to respond to her partisans’ second term petition from a podium surrounded by the collective representation of all registered political parties of Liberia. Worse still, a declaration of political candidacy in the presence of the diplomatic corps, logically tempted to participate in the applause extravaganza of the loyalists upon the pronouncement, is an attempt to wrongly extirpate the neutrality of our valuable partners. This mishap inserts a terrible flaw in postwar democratic gains and leaves behind a terrifying experience that lay the basis for dangerous future consequences.

In furtherance, there exists a much deeper rationale behind the President’s presentation of an annual message before the collective assembly of the House of Representatives. Embedded in the rationale lies the statutory obligation of Lawmakers to report to their constituencies on the President’s expressed sate of the nation. And because all ninety-four members of Assembly are duty-bound to perform this revered task to their constituencies is the legal wisdom that coerced a joint session amidst a Presidential testimony of the state of the Republic, other than the traditional press conference module of information dissemination. With this purpose defined, the methodology employed by the President is instantly compromised and exposes clashing political contradictions. To highlight a few, we hypothetically make the following inquiries:

Ø  Can an opposition Lawmaker take to his constituents, news that the Unity Party Standard Bearer has declared to rerun in the 2011 Presidential Elections?

Ø  Is it constitutionally and democratically tolerable for a political party to use this occasion to promote its agenda above that of the nation?

Ø  Since the joint podium of the Legislature was harnessed to deliver a political strategy, was this not an attempt to compromise national leadership through the relegation of the governing process subservient to the electoral strategies of the ruling Unity party?

Ø  Hence, is the electoral strategy of the ruling party the same as the governance of the State?

Defenders of the President’s second-term declaration debacle are now burdened to patriotically and objectively answer these questions, and will inevitably realize that the container holding their argument can never hold water. Now that constitutionally available details provided in this analysis respectfully identified the massive flaws intrinsic in the President’s choice of venue in her second-term publicity, the Liberian intelligentsia, including regiments of the ruling party must muster the courage to tell her that she erred. This is a timely requirement, and in fact someone better wake up the President with a reminder that evolving national circumstances have changed the political power play. One can easily understand how hard it is for the incumbent oligarchs to stomach this massive democratic evolution, but we are all rudely-awakened by competing ideas and challenging political forces that cannot permit the slaughter of the constitution.

 As we near the end, it would have been easily comprehensible if President Sirleaf’s actions were perpetrated by her predecessors. For example, President William R. Tolbert would have had no headache doing this because the Legislature was the same as the Executive Committee of the True Whig Party; Presidents Samuel K. Doe and Charles G. Taylor would have enjoyed a unanimous applause in the commission of this constitutional sin because of the unchallenged majority of both Houses during their tenures, a situation which is by far contrary to the current democratic practice. Despite these elementary historical lessons, it’s hard to guess why the President, a fine intellectual, could blaspheme the blessedness of the joint assembly! Could it be that the two most senior positions, Speaker and President Pro Tempore are occupied by individuals from the ruling party?

Whatever the answer is, I wish to emphasize that the president is indefensible in light of the above argument, and that she made a serious constitutional error when responding to partisans’ petition to contest 2011 elections while delivering an annual message to parliament. While it is true that the president may belong to a particular political party, the presidency belongs to the state and its entire people. It is therefore wrong when major functions of government become subject to the fancy of the ruling party. Finally, the President’s error undermines the constitution she was elected to uphold, an action impregnated with dangerous political consequences that could be avoided with apologies to the Liberian people. Long live Liberia and its emerging democracy!

Copyright

Hon. Rufus D. Neufville

23rd February 2010

Monrovia, Liberia