By T. Tevoma
Introduction
The word impeachment was first introduced and used in England in 1376 during the reign of King Edward lll and was intended for application to ministers of the state in cases of high misdemeanors. In England, if an accusation was brought by the House of Commons, the trial was held by the House of Lords.
This practice was adopted by the United States, with the roles of the House of Commons and the House of Lords assigned to the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively. Liberia adopted the practice via the United States without change.
The Liberian Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power for impeachment and that the accusation must be investigated and confirmed by a majority vote of the House’s members. And such accusations for impeachment shall include the following: Misconduct, Misdemeanor, Treason and Bribery.
In both the 1847 and 1986 Constitutions, the framers vested the Senate with the “Sole Power to try Impeachments” because they believed that the Senate was the House of Elders and that the Senators would be better educated, more virtuous, and more high-minded. They believed they would be wiser than members of the House of Representatives and thus uniquely able to decide responsibly the most difficult of the political questions.
The framers also gave one cardinal requirement for Impeachment Trials and that was that “Senators be under Oath or Affirmation before Impeachment Trials start.” This was designed to impress upon them the extreme seriousness of the occasion.
In the 1847 Constitution, the framers listed the officers of government that may be impeached. These included the president, vice president and other officers of the Executive and all persons of the Judiciary. It did not include military officers nor did it extend to privates, nor the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The 1986 Constitution excluded the executive officers (such as ministers) but maintained the president and vice president and the Judiciary officers from Circuit Court Judges upward. The other exclusions were maintained. The Constitution gave the causes for impeachment as Misconduct, Treason, Bribery, Misdemeanors and other High Crimes.
Under the 1847 Constitution the House of Representatives heard three Impeachment Cases, but only two were voted upon and sent to the senate for trail, while the third was never voted upon. The two cases that were voted upon and trail during the sitting of the Eleven Legislature were that of Secretary of State, Hilary R. Johnson and President Edward James Roye. The one that was not voted upon was the case of Charles D. B. King, because he resigned before the vote would be taken, hence it was drop
Under the 1986 Constitution, there were have been two Impeachment Cases—the case of former Chief Justice Chea Chepo and recently the case of Associate Justice Kabineh Ja’neh; both were voted upon by the House of Representatives and sent to the Senate for trial.
Legislatures’ role under the microscope
The purpose of this article is to put the roles of the eleventh and the fifty-fourth Legislature Senators Impeachment trials under the microscope.
Jusice Ja’nah’s impeachment in light of historical precedents
Article 43 of the 1986 Constitution provides that the Legislature shall prescribe the procedures for impeachment proceedings, which shall be in conformity with the requirements of due process of law.
This is unique in that in other constitutions, particularly the one of the United States of America Constitution after which Liberia’s was modeled, “Each house (representative and senate) prescribes the procedures for impeachment proceedings.” What the Liberian Senate did by prescribing its own rules and proceedings was using the United States Constitution and not The Liberian Constitution.
This would have been acceptable, if the constitution was silence on how rules and proceedings should be prescribed. Since the American Constitution was used, there should been two votes (one for removal and the second disqualification). This was not done; therefore Justice Ja’neh was removed but not disqualified.
The first trial for impeachment in Liberia’s history was held in 1872 against the Secretary of State (Hilary R. Johnson), because of his role in the Special Election of May 1870. Under the 1847 Constitution; the Department of State kept the ballots of Presidential and Legislative Elections and the legislature had responsibility to announce the results of these elections.
However, the constitution was silent on other election results like, for example, Constitutional Amendments.
In the 1870 election, the State Department rejected all of the votes cast save the ones from Maryland County. The rejected votes were from tickets that had more words on them than the law expressly provided for (the additional words were explanatory and copied from the law). In the view of the Secretary of State, the rejected tickets had been “vitiated” (spoiled) and therefore had to be rejected so as to obey the law.
This explanation did not allay the excitement of the House of Representatives which thought the Secretary of State had interfered with the process. They indicted and impeached him for “interfering with the ballots-boxes.”
During the hearing, the senate acknowledged the correctness of the position assumed by the House of Representatives, but argued that by a strange freak of mind, some mental hallucination, the Secretary of State possibly may have considered it his duty to act as he did. The Senate, being favorably disposed to his past services and devotion to the interest of the country, attributed his action to possible infirmity (old age) and dismissed the impeachment against him.
This Secretary of State (Hilary R. Johnson) was in later years elected president of the country. His contributions are unmatched by many presidents before and after him.
The second impeachment case was that of President Edward James Roye and also came out of the 1870 Special Election. The House of Representatives brought charges against the president for the same reason it charged the Secretary of State but the Senate refused to take up the proceedings owing to formal defects in the proceedings in the House.
The president was, however, charged while as president with misappropriation of public funds in a court and a handpicked jury brought in a verdict of guilty on February 11, 1872. This action was unlawful. A sitting president cannot /should not be prosecuted for actions taken as president. This is found in the Supreme Court Ruling/Opinion read by Chief Justice Frederick E. R. Johnson in the case RL vs C. D. B .King in the 1930, when the people of Sinoe and the Attorney General wanted to charge former President King for the crime of slavery.
The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that this second action was unlawful. The Court ruled that since King was not impeached, he could not be held for any action he performed while serving as President (See Supreme Court Opinion read by Chief Justice Frederick E. R. Johnson: C. D. B. King vs RL). The former President was later appointed Ambassador to the Court of James, in London.
Parenthetically, the country was broke in 1870. President Edward James Roye was the richest man in Liberia, probably richer than the country itself. The president charged the Speaker of the House of Representatives (William Spencer Anderson) with the responsibility to negotiate the loan of 1870; he was to be assisted by the Secretary of Treasury.
The purposes of the loan were to correct the wrongs in the country. According to an American Judge, Steward, who visited Liberia in the late 1800, he wrote the following in his diary: “The African Freeman is treated as if he has no rights were worthy of respect. He is defrauded, beaten, made to feel like an inferior being, excluded from churches and schools, etc”. Read: “The Political and Legislative History of Liberia.”
One of Liberia’s former presidents, Daniel B. Warner in a speech in 1866, warned his compatriots in their relationship with the indigenous in the following words: “But the chiefs and their subjects have undoubtedly certain rights both natural and political, which should be respected by this government and its people. And when this is done, and the natives are not provoked by us to the commission of lawless deeds, or instigated by dishonorable men to insubordination, there will subsist between us and them, a permanent good understanding and greatest cordiality of feeling.”
Read former Nigeria President Azikiwe’s Book and Yancy’s Book ( “Liberia in World Politics” and “Liberian History Past and Present” respectively.
William Spencer Anderson was charged and tried for negotiating the loan but the jury acquitted him in 1872. Unfortunately, he was shot while leaving the court.
Now coming to the 54th Legislature and the impeachment trial of Justice Kabineh Ja’neh, Some of the Senators who voted to impeach him, but said the proceedings were unconstitutional and their sentiment has also been re-echoed by many legal minds in the country. How can Senators say something is unconstitutional but stay voted for and not against? This conclusion seems to be supported by specific, unambiguous provisions of the constitution.
Of the four charges brought against Justice Ja’neh, none included charges in the constitution that warrant impeachment. He was acquitted on three counts but was found guilty of the charge that related to his opinion as a Justice by issuing a Stay Order for the collection of the 25 cent tax imposed on petroleum product. In fact, since this was a constitution issue, he forwarded it to the full beach.
But Article 73 of the constitution provides that: “No Judicial Official shall be summoned, arrested, detained, prosecuted or tried civilly or criminally by the instance of any person or authority on account of judicial opinions rendered or expressed, judicial statements made and judicial act done in the course of the trial in open court or in chambers, except for treason or other felonies, misdemeanor or breach of the peace.
Statements made and acts done by such officials in the course of a judicial proceeding shall be privileged, and subject to the above qualification, no such statements made or act done shall be admissible into evidence against them at ANY (emphasis is mine) trail or proceeding.” It seems the trial violated the spirit and letter of the provisions of this article of our constitution.
So, here is the question: Why did the senate convict Justice Ja’nah? From the reading of the law it seems amply clear the action for which he was impeached was protected by the constitution, or are we misreading the constitution?
The value of a legal system in supporting societal harmony lies not just in the statutes and the constitution but also, and perhaps more significantly, in the people’s sense of the actual protection that they can expect from these instruments through those who are charged with the responsibility of interpreting them and actualizing their intents.
Eroding this confidence carries the real possibility of undermining societal harmony. Given that this action of the senate has created serious concerns for so many Liberians about the future of the rule of law in the country, the Senate will do justice to its sacred responsibility if it would educate the public why it acted the way it did vis-a- vis the obvious clear provisions of the constitution.