PHOTO: CBL Governor Aloysius Tarlor is not taking his suspension lying down
By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia- The Supreme Court Chambers, Justice Yussif D. Kaba issued the alternative writ and forwarded the case filed by suspended Central Bank of Liberia (CBL) Executive Governor, Aloysius Tarlue to the full Bench for hearing.
At the weekend (Friday, August 9,2024), the Chambers Justice has also mandated the government of Liberia through the Ministry of Justice to file their returns.
President Joseph Nyuma Boakai recently indefinitely suspended Governor in the wake of audit report by the General Auditing Commission (GAC) unearthing alleged corruption at the CBL. But that prompted Tarlue to file a lawsuit resisting the move, while CBL Deputy Governor for Operations, Nyemade Pearson reportedly “involuntarily” resigned her post recently after reaching a deal with the Executive Mansion on her compensation for her early departure before her tenure expired.
On Monday August 5,2024, the Supreme Court Chambers Justice Yussif D. Kaba scheduled a conference with the suspended Central Bank of Liberia Governor J. Aloysius Tarlue, following a petition for the writ of prohibition filed against the Executive Branch of Government headed by President Joseph Nyumah Boakai.
Suspended CBL governor Tarlue is being represented by the Gongloe & Associates, Inc. situated on Ashmun Street Monrovia Liberia
The Supreme Court record reads, By directive of His Honor Yussif D. Kaba, Associate Justice presiding in Chambers, you are hereby cited to a conference with His Honor on Tuesday, August 6, 2024, at the hour of 3:00 p.m., in connection with the above captioned case.
Read the petition below:
PETITIONER’S PETITION AND COMES PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE OF ACTION and most respectfully requests your honor and this honorable court for the issuance of the alternative writ of prohibition to be served on the above-named respondent to show cause why the peremptory writ should not issue for the following legal and factual reasons, to wit:
The Petitioner is the Executive Governor of the Central Bank of Liberia, who was duly appointed in accordance with the controlling law of the Central Bank Act of the Republic of Liberia on the 15th day of July A.D. 2021. Attached is a copy of the Petitioner’s letter of appointment marked as exhibit P/1 to form a cogent part of the petition. 2.
The content of the Petitioner’s letter of appointment clearly states that by virtue of his appointment as the Executive Governor, he had a definite term to serve and could not be dismissed by the President of Liberia or removed from performing his function, except by impeachment by the National Legislature.
The Petitioner states that Section 13.1 of the Amended and Restated Act Establishing the Central Bank of Liberia (1999), which was published into handbill on September 21, 2020, clearly states that the appointment of the Non-Executive Governors, Executive Governor, and Deputy Governors shall be from among persons who are in good standing and of unimpeachable character, from the business and academic community, with experience and expertise in the business of banking, finance, economics, law, or management, by the President of the Republic of Liberia, subject to confirmation by the Liberian Senate, for a term of five years.
As to count three above, the Petitioner provides that the appointment procedure must be finalized within sixty days preceding the expiration of the term of the relevant Non-Executive Governor, with the condition that a Non-Executive Governor by effluxion of time shall be eligible for reappointment, provided that he or she shall not serve for more than two consecutive five-year terms, constitutes a willful violation of the Amended and Restated Act Establishing the Central Bank of Liberia (1999) without any legal justification.
The Petitioner asserts that his suspension violates Article 20(a) of the 1986 Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, security of the person, property, privilege, or any other right, except as the outcome of a hearing judgment, consistent with the provisions laid down in this Constitution and in accordance with due process of law.
His suspension without pay is tantamount to removal and was done without a hearing.
The Petitioner notes that on June 16, 2005, the National Transitional Legislative Assembly of the Republic of Liberia amended and repealed Chapter 53 of the Executive Law of 1972, creating the General Auditing Office and placing it under the Executive Branch of Government, granting it the status of an independent autonomous agency amendable to the Legislative Branch of the Government of the Republic of Liberia as clearly provided in Section 1 of the aforementioned Amended Act.
The Petitioner further states that subsection 4.2(b) of the 2014 Act of the GAC, captioned “Final Audit,” says that the General Auditing Commission shall submit audit reports individually or in groups to the legislature, with copies to the President of Liberia, periodically, throughout the year, as it deems appropriate.
The Petitioner asserts that section 4.2(g) of the GAC Act of 2014 provides that in fulfilling its oversight responsibility, the Legislature, upon receipt of the audit report, shifcus nc debate matters of public interest contained in the audit t report with the propriate public official in the presence of the Auditor General or his/her representatives.
The Petitioner contends that his suspension by the respondent, without being given the opportunity to be heard by the appropriate Committee of the Legislature, constitutes a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers under the Constitution of Liberia, as the removal of the Executive Governor was, by the law creating the Central Bank, exclusively made a function of the National Legislature.
17.The Petitioner asserts that a writ of Prohibition is the only remedy available to him under the circumstances to undo what has been illegally done by the Executive Branch of Government against him.
The Petitioner states that prohibition will lie to undo what has been illegally done by the respondent and to prevent the respondent from proceeding further to commit other illegal acts against the petitioner.
The Petitioner contends that if the respondent is not prohibited from removing from office officials in the three branches of government with tenures protected by law or whose removal can only be by impeachment or other legal procedures and for specifically stated legal grounds, then such arbitrary action by the government may become a precedent for the respondent/ Executive Branch of government.