PHOTO: Wellington Geevon-Smith
The Supreme Court of Liberia mandate to recount the 104 polling places has been duly implemented in Rivercess County, with independent candidate Geevon-Smith taking the senatorial seat of this southeastern county.
Mr. Smith was Superintendent of Rivercess County during the administration of former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.
The recount process, which began on March 19, 2021, concluded on March 21, 2021 based on a February 24, 2021 mandate from the nation’s highest court.
Independent candidate Geevon Smith obtained a total votes of 3,332 =23.35% while, the independent candidate Steve Tequah allegedly sponsored by the National Port Authority managing Director Bill Twarway obtained a total votes of 3,289=23.05%.
Rivercess County turned over side down with supporters of Geevon Smith taking on the street with celebration after the local office of the NEC concluded the recount..
The Supreme Court of Liberia full bench last February ordered the National Elections Commission to recount the remaining 104 polling places after seven others polling places were recounted as prayed for by the Independent senatorial candidate Steve Tequah.
Steve Tequah
The higher Court upheld the NEC decisions ordering the recount of the 104 polling places based on testimony from the NEC presiding offer in which he declared most of the votes obtained the Independent candidate Tequah as invalid votes based on serious confusion and the absent of security.
During the recount process in the first seven polling places prayed for by Steve Tequah, it was disclosed that independent candidate Tequah obtained 80 votes while Geevon Smith obtained 18 votes which the independent candidate Steve Tequah to ordered the NEC to do recount in the remaining 104 polling places which the NEC agreed to do so but it was disagreed by independent candidate Geevon Smith prompting him to petitioned the Supreme Court on legal reasons.
Rivercess County has 111 polling places upon which seven has been recounted.
In his petition filed before the Supreme Court through his lawyer Cllr. Findley Kangar says, that Petitioner is currently the 2nd
Respondent before the Board of Commissioners of the National Elections Commission (NEC) in a Bill of Information proceedings filed by the 2nd Respondent to hear and decide on the January 11, 2020 ruling of NEC which mandated that seven (7) polling places will be re-counted out of one hundred eleven (111) polling places boxes used during the December 8, 2020 Rivercess County senatorial election.
That, the 2nd Respondent accepted the portion of the 1st Respondent ruling which mandates the re-count of the seven (7) polling places and excepted or rejected to the exclusion of the remaining 104 polling places. Despite rejection and objection of the 1st Respondent NEC ruling, in part, on January 11, 2020, 2nd Respondent did not take any step to perfect or appeal the final decision preventing the re-count of the 111 polling places. Attached hereto and marked as Petitioner Exhibit “P/1” is a copy of the Bill of Information.
The Petitioner further says the 1st Respondent who knows, and is in possession of the January 11, 2021 Ruling, which denied the total re-count of all of 111 polling places for the Rivercess County Senatorial Election, heard a Bill of Information by the 2nd Respondent which substantially seeks to overturn the January 11, 2021 ruling preventing the re-count of the total 111 polling places in direct contravention to section 5.13 (Decision on Complaints by the Commission) of the New Election Law. The cited law mandates 1st Respondent to provide any one of the following decisions after the hearing of an appeal of the Magistrate or Chief Hearing Officer:
dismiss the complaint;
order that a ballot box be opened and re-counted;
order a re-vote at a polling place or polling station;
reference a complaint to the Ministry of Justice for Prosecution if it believes that there is credible evidence of a crime, or
order a punishment within the authority of the commission law
That, Petitioner avers that obedience to the law cited above, 1st Respondent ruled based on Section 5.13(b) of the New Elections Law and ordered re-count of seven (7) polling places out of 111 polling places. Thereafter, all parties (i.e. 1st Respondent, 2nd Respondent and Petitioner) participated in the re-count exercise mandated by NEC on January 11, 2021. In support of this averment, Petitioner have attached Exhibit “P/2”, which is a copy of the Ruling of the 1st Respondent to form a cogent part of this Petition.
That, Petitioner says although 2nd Respondent excepted to the portion of 1st Respondent’s mandate of January 11, 2021, that only seven (7) polling places should be re-counted, 2nd Respondent failed and neglected to comply with Section 5.12(6) of the New Elections Law, which says: ‘A decision of the Commission (i.e. Board of Commission) on an appeal from the decision of a Magistrate or Chief Hearing officer may be appeal to the Supreme Court of Liberia within 48 (Forty-eight Hours after the posting of the decision.” The January 11, 2021 decision was duly received by all the parties to the conflict. This is evident by the parties participation in the re-count exercise conducted for the seven (7) polling places on January 16, 2021. Attached hereto is a copy of the Minutes of the January 11, 2021 ruling by 1st Respondent as Petitioner’s Exhibit “P/3” to form a cogent part of the Petition.
That, Petitioner submits and says, 2nd Respondent has not filed his Bill of Exceptions since the rendition of the 1st Respondent’s Ruling on January 11, 2021, up to and including the filing of this Petition. The 2nd Respondent had until January 14, 2021 to complete his appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia, which is inclusive of his recognizance with the 1st Respondent NEC, the filing of his bill of exceptions and filing for the recognizance aspect of the appeal, none of these were done in fulfilment of the appeal statute as discussed by the Supreme Court in NEC vs Amos Siebo (2017). In the Siebo case, the Supreme Court denied Amos Siebo appealed because he did not perfect his appeal within the 48-hours. To support this argument, petitioner have Attached hereto a Clerk’s Certificate as Petitioner’s Exhibit P’/4” to confirm that 2nd Respondent did not file his Bill of Exceptions within statutory 48 hours period as provided by section 5.12(6) of the New Elections Laws. Hence, 1st and 2nd Respondents action to file and hear a Bill of Information, respectively, are without jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW of the foregoing, Petitioner most respectfully prays Your Honor and this Honorable Court to:
Order the issuance of the Alternative Writ of Prohibition against the Respondents and by it require them to file their Returns on a date and time fixed by Your Honor and to show cause as to why the peremptory Writ of Prohibition should not issue.
Order the issuance of the Alternative Writ of Prohibition against the Respondents and by it, direct that all actions by the Respondents in relation to hearing the Bill of Information of January 23, 2021 to be halted pending the hearing of this Petition.
After hearing the petition, order the issuance of the peremptory Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the Respondents from ever hearing any Information on the 104 polling places which were declared by the 1st Respondent to be accurate considering that the time for appeal have since elapsed.
Grant unto Petitioner all further relief as Your Honor may deem just, legal and right. Report by Garmah Never Lomo