At long last, the Supreme Court of Liberia has unanimously denied the Collaborating Political Parties (CPP) request to halt the ongoing Biometric Voter Registration (BVR) exercise they claim is being conducted in violation of the Constitution.
The CPP’s had earlier alleged that the National Elections Commission’s (NEC) decision to conduct the BVR exercise without first demarcating constituencies, as a result of a national census, runs contrary to Article 80 (e and c) of the country’s Constitution.
Article 80 (e), which the CPP claims was violated, provides that “immediately following a national census and before the next elections, the Elections Commission shall reapportion the constituencies in accordance with the new population figures so that every constituency shall have as close to the same population.”
While Article 80(c), among other things, grants that every Liberian citizen has the right to be registered and vote only in the constituency where they are registered.
Furthermore, Liberia’s population, according to the provisional results released by LISGIS, stands at 5.2 million, an increase of 50.4 percent when compared to when it was 3.5 million.
The CPP, in its complaint argued, “We have, therefore, asked the Supreme Court to demand that the NEC obey the Constitution, and not permit violations of constitutional provisions relating to the elections, without acting to correct such violations. If we permit one violation, we risk permitting others, including the timely conduct of the elections.”
But the Ministry of Justice and the NEC, however, argued that the BVR exercise was not in violation of the Constitution, as alleged by the CPP, asserting that the demarcation of districts in accordance with the Census cannot be done until the full census results are released, and NEC can then submit a threshold bill to the legislature.
However, the Supreme Court, having entertained arguments from both parties, ruled that it saw no basis for disturbing the country’s BVR exercise since the NEC was not in violation of the Constitution as alleged.
According to the Court ruling, the case does not constitute an election matter within the contemplation of the constitutional mandate that the Supreme Court hear and make a determination on an election matter within seven days.
“We find no reason to disturb the ongoing voters’ registration exercise since the NEC is not in violation of the Constitution as regards Article 80(d)(e),” Chief Justice Sie -A-Nyene Yuoh ruled in a unanimous verdict.
“Hence, the mere fact that political parties, an alliance, a candidate, or the NEC are mentioned or challenged in a case does not also make the same an election matter; and that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the entire document rather than a sequestered pronouncement, that every provision is of equal importance, even where there is an apparent discrepancy between different provisions,” Yuoh said.
Article 80(d) and (e), according to the Court, are linked and interdependent; as such, they are not self-executing but based upon the precondition that a census report be concluded and submitted to the Legislature.
The Court noted that it is the duty of the Legislature to create the threshold, which then shall empower the electoral body to reapportion the constituencies in accordance with Article 80(e) of the Constitution.
“While NEC has a duty under Article 80(e) to reapportion constituencies, the said duty is not self-executing. The duty to reapportion constituencies can only be executed based upon the preconditions that a national census report be concluded and submitted to the Legislature, and the Legislature creates the laws, and then the NEC performs its duty to reapportion the constituencies pursuant to Article 80(e),” Chief Justice Yuoh added.
Meanwhile, the court yesterday’s, April 12, 2023 ruling now paved the way for the NEC to move ahead with phase two of the BVR exercise, having already conducted phase one, which was mere by some technical glitches.
