REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA, Petitioner, v. THE GRAND COALITION, represented by WILLIAM KPOLLEH of the LIBERIA UNIFICATION PARTY (LUP) Chairman, JACKSON FIAH DOE of the LIBERIA ACTION PARTY (LAP), First Vice Chairman, DR. EDWARD BEYAN KESSELLY of the UNITY PARTY, Second Vice Chairman, PETER JALLAH, General Secretary, et. al., Respondents.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO THE SUPREME COURT
Heard: April 21, 1986. Decided: May 30, 1986.
1. No association, by whatever name called, shall function as a political party … unless the association meets the minimum registration requirements laid down by the Elections Laws and registers with the Elections Commission. Article 79 of the Liberia Constitution.
2. The convening of a mass rally is purely the function of a political party.
3. Where the exercise of one’s civil right proves dangerous and pernicious to society, it is not unconstitutional to halt that right.
4. It is not unconstitutional to restrain the civil right of an individual when the exercise of that right is found to be dangerous to others.
5. Even though a political association does not fall within the jurisdictional purview of the Supreme Court as in the case of an inferior court of justice, an administrative court, or a public agency or officer, the Supreme Court will assume original jurisdiction when no other court is competent to do so, and when the exigency of the issues so requires.
6. The Supreme Court, being the interpreter of the laws of the land, has the prerogative to expand, in the best interest of justice, the constitution in all spheres not specifically alluded to.
7. The Supreme Court can assume original jurisdiction in prohibition proceedings over persons not under its jurisdictional purview.
8. Originally an appellate court will exercise its original jurisdiction only in a matter affecting a great number of people, and not in a matter of merely local or private interest, although particular circumstances may justify a deviation from this general principle, as for instance, where the private interest is initially connected with a public interest.
9. The Minister of Justice is empowered to issue permits for all marches and demonstrations within the Republic of Liberia. Any group of persons desiring to stage a march or demonstration within the Republic of Liberia must first obtain from the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Liberia a permit to do so.
A number of Liberian political parties under the name and style of the Grand Coalition Parties, wrote the Minister of Justice on March 18, 1986 to inform him that the coalition had planned to conduct a mass fund-raising rally on March 21, 1986 at the Coconut Plantation, South Beach, Monrovia, and would require security protection. On March 19, 1986 the Coalition distributed leaflets captioned “Aware For Positive Action”, inviting the entire citizenry to attend the rally. The Minister of Justice thereupon filed a petition for a writ of prohibition against the Coalition with the Justice in Chambers, Elwood Jangaba, who in turn referred the matter to the full bench because of the constitutional issues involved.
The Supreme Court had to decide, among other issues, whether it had jurisdiction over this matter and, if so, is prohibition the proper remedy?
The petitioners, on the one hand, essentially maintained that the Coalition, which was not a political party and therefore not subject to the Elections Law, had undertaken to conduct a rally with intent to create chaos and confusion and disrupt the stability of the Government. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that organizing a rally was consistent with the fundamental “right to assemble and consult upon the common good…” guaranteed by Article 17 of the Constitution.
The Court observed that although the Grand Coalition did not fall under its jurisdictional purview, it had to assume original jurisdiction since remanding the matter to an inferior court will render the decision of that court binding only in the county where the matter is heard, and nowhere else. A judgment of the Supreme Court will undoubtedly be binding throughout the country. With regards to the proper remedy, the Court determined that prohibition will lie since it is the only restraining process at its disposal to prevent calamity and havoc to residents of the country. The Court therefore granted the prohibition prayed for by the Minister.
Jenkins K Z. B. Scott, Minister of Justice, Solicitor-General MacDonald J. Krakue, and other practicing lawyers of the Ministry of Justice appeared for petitioner. J. Edward Koenig,
J. L. Supuwood and Francis Y. S. Garlawolo appeared for respondents.
MR. JUSTICE TULAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
On the 19th of March, A. D. 1986, the Ministry of Justice filed a petition for prohibition with His Honour Elwood L. Jangaba, Justice in Chambers. Upon the receipt of the respondent’s returns, the Chambers Justice ordered that the cause be venued before the full bench as constitutional issues are involved. We give below counts two and three of the petition:
“2. And also because petitioner says and strongly feels that should said mass political rally be held as planned, it would not be in the best interest to the security of the State and could have an adverse effect on the prevailing state of affairs, which includes public peace, with respect to a coalition of the Unity Party (UP), Liberia Action Party (LAP) and the Liberia Unification Party (LUP), having, without due regard to law and order, grouped themselves together under the leadership of respondents William Kpolleh as Chairman, Jackson Fiah Doe as First Vice Chairman, Edward Beyan Kesselly as Second Vice Chairman and Peter Jallah as Secretary-General, (as will more fully appear by copy of the MIRROR Newspaper, Volume 4., No. 99, Monday, March 17, 1986 issue marked Exhibit “B” to form integral part of this petition), have undertaken to stage a mass rally with the sole intent to form a coalition to cause chaos, disarray confusion, incite and inflame the minds of the public likely to, result into violence, for the sole purpose of toppling the duly elected and constituted Government and disrupting the unity of the State and endangering the economic stability of the Republic of Liberia, much to the harm and injury of the people of this country.
“3. Petitioner further submits that she knows of a coalition government and not a coalition party. If a coalition party is such, the same should have conformed to the election laws and the Constitution of the Republic of Liberia in vogue. Petitioner further contends that considering the citation itself, citing the youths, market women, the concerned women of Liberia, the workers, as well as the entire citizenry to attend this mass rally coming in the wake of the recent students demonstration, the intent of this mass rally is to incite the public and disrupt the stability of the State. Hence prohibition will lie. To this petition respondents filed a six-count returns. Below we give counts one, two and three of said returns which we
consider salient:
“1. As to count one (1) of the petition, respondents admit having planned a mass rally as alleged therein, but same provides no ground for the issuance of a writ of prohibition, in that a writ of prohibition issues only to prevent the doing of an illegal act or to undo an act which is illegal since, in fact, respondents are legally recognized political parties, each maintaining its own identity. Whereas in this case, the issuance of a citation to citizens to voluntarily assemble to consult upon the common good is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 17 of the Constitution which reads as follows:
“All persons, at all times, in an orderly and peace-able manner, shall have the right to assemble and consult upon the common good to instruct their representative functionaries for the redress of grievances and to associate fully with others or refuse to associate in political parties, trade unions, and other organizations.
Referring further to count one of the petition, respondents beg to inform this Honourable Court that as good, patriotic and law-abiding citizens, the planned mass rally was cancelled in obedience to the order of His Honour Elwood L. Jangaba, Associate Justice, presiding in Chambers. Thus, the issues raised in said petition are now moot, rendering the entire petition dismissible.
“2. As to count two (2) of the petition, respondents maintain that the questions of mass rally being moot, the petition should be dismissed with cost against petitioner.
However, the allegation that the rally was intended to form a coalition to cause chaos, disarray, confusion, incite and inflame the minds of the public, likely to result in violence for the sole purpose of toppling the Government and endanger the economic stability of the Republic of Liberia is an outright deception intended to use this Honourable Court of Justice to frustrate the democratic process in this country and merely to point fingers at William G. Kpolleh of LUP, Dr. Edward B. Kesselly of UP, Jackson F. Doe of LAP and Peter Jallah, all honorable citizens of this country, as targets for another round of harassment, torture and frustration.
The truth is that no reasonable mind, equipped with full knowledge of the activities of these decent law-abiding and honorable citizens in this country or anywhere in the civilized world could, by any imagination, associate them with violence.
Further, the coalition was already formed and petitioner’s assertion that the purpose of the mass rally was to form a coalition clearly shows a lack of understanding of facts which are of common knowledge to everyone.
“3. As to count three (3) of the petition, respondents request this Honourable Court to take judicial notice of the fact that they (respondents) formed a coalition and not a coalition party, and it is sad that counsel for petitioner failed and/or neglected to comprehend this elementary and fundamental concept.
In Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, page 432 volume 1, coalition in government or politics is defined as: ‘A temporary alliance of distinct parties, person, or states for joint action or to achieve a common purpose.”
This coalition which by another term is an association, is constitutionally guaranteed and this petition is intended merely to mislead this Honourable Court into violating the constitutional rights of the majority of the Liberian people.
Further to count three of the petition, respondents maintain that if counsel for petitioner are unknowledgeable of the definition of coalition, then respondents should not be the victims thereof, for such is a common knowledge in contemporary politics and that a writ of prohibition cannot lie on such a frivolous and baseless ground.
Referring further to count three (3) of the petition, respondents maintain that petitioner’s claim that a coalition of political parties must meet requirements of the Elections Commission is an absurd misinterpretation of Article 79 of Constitution, for no such requirements exist under any law, rules or regulations of the Elections Commission.
The intent and purpose of Article 79 of the Constitution is to establish criteria for the registration of would be political parties and independent candidates, and not a prohibition against coalition of already legally recognized political parties.
The prohibition imposed under Article 79 is intended, from the plain meaning of the language, against ordinary associations such as labor unions, social clubs, etc. from functioning as political parties. To reason otherwise, defeats the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to freedom of association and expression.” During arguments before us the respondents in this case posed the following questions:
(a) Whether recognized political parties must meet requirements of Article 79 of the Constitution and Elections Law before forming a coalition?
(b) Whether prohibition will lie against respondents in this case in the absence of judicial or administrative proceedings or alternatively, in their exercise of constitutional right?
(c) Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction under the law of Liberia in cases not involving ambassadors, ministers or counties?
(d) Even if the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in the instant prohibition proceedings, is prohibition the proper remedy?
Before attempting to make pronouncements on the four questions herein above, it is necessary to refer to two documents dated March 18 and 19, 1986, which necessitated the institution of this proceedings:
“March 18, 1986 Honourable Jenkins K. Z. B. Scott Minister, Ministry of Justice Monrovia, Liberia. Mr. Minister:
We wish to inform you that the Grand Coalition of Unity Party (UP), the Liberia Action Party (LAP) and the Liberia Unification Party (LUP) will be holding a Mass Fund Raising Rally at the Coconut Plantation, Randall Street, South Beach, Monrovia, at the precise hour of 2:00 p.m. on Friday, March 21, 1986. In this connection we would be pleased were you to provide your usual security protection to ensure safety.
Kindest regards, Sincerely yours, Sgd. Peter B. Jallah SECRETARY-GENERAL
COALITION (UP, LAP & LUP)” “AWAKE FOR POSITIVE ACTION
March 19, 1986 THE COALITION OF UNITY PARTY, THE LIBERIA ACTION PARTY AND THE LIBERIA UNIFICATION PARTY WILL HOLD A MASS POLITICAL RALLY ON FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 1986 AT THE COCONUT PLANTATION ON RANDALL STREET SOUTH BEACH, MONROVIA, AT 2:00 P.M. PRECISELY.
THE COALITION IS CALLING ON THE YOUTHS, THE MARKET WOMEN, THE CONCERNED WOMEN OF LIBERIA, THE WORKERS AS WELL AS THE ENTIRE LIBERIAN CITIZENRY TO ATTEND THIS MASS RALLY.
THE RALLY WHICH IS EXPECTED TO FEATURE THE THREE MAIN OPPOSITION LEADERS WILL BE CLIMAXED WITH STATEMENTS OF THANKS AND APPRECIATION FROM DR. EDWARD B. KESSELLY, MR. JACKSON F. DOE AND MR. WILLIAM G. KPOLLEH TO THE LIBERIAN PEOPLE.
VICTORY IS OURS! /s/ Peter B. Jallah /t/ Peter B. Jallah
SECRETARY-GENERAL COALITION (UP, LAP & LUP)”
There are other documents which are pertinent to the cause on hand but, because they came out after the petition was already filed, we cannot incorporate them here.
Registered and therefore recognized political parties have the right to function within the limit spelled out in their constitution and bylaws. They, in compliance with the existing laws, are at liberty to hold public meetings for discussion on matters of interest to them.
The Liberia Action Party, the Liberia Unification Party, and the Unity Party ask whether they being recognized political parties, must meet the requirements of Article 79 of the Constitution and the Elections Law before forming a coalition. What, we ask, is a coalition?
A coalition government is one that is composed of members of various political parties. A coalition consists of several political parties grouped together for the purpose of concerted action. In French Law, a coalition is an unlawful agreement among several persons not to do a thing except on some condition agreed upon, such as an industrial combination, strikes, or a conspiracy. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 323 (4th ed.)
The Grand Coalition has among its plans, an intent to convene a mass political rally to which the youths, concerned women, market women, workers and the citizenry are asked to attend and in that meeting the head of the three political parties LAP, LUP and UP expect to express appreciation and thanks to the people for their support – and we may add, to ask for their relentless and continuous support until victory, which is theirs, is won.
If this is not a function of political party, what else, we ask, may it be? Plato, the Greek philosopher once asked: “What is there in a name?” Yes, it is not the name that matters but what the person who bears the name does. This is what the Constitution forestalled in Article 79 when it says:
“No association, by whatever name called, shall function as a political party . . . .unless the association meets the minimum registration requirements laid down by the Elections Law and registers with it. . . . ” LIB. CONST (1986), art. 79.
The Grand Coalition is therefore an agreement among the members of the Liberia Action Party, Liberia Unity Party and the Liberia Unification Party, each party retaining its original identity for the purpose of bringing about concerted programs.
It therefore may be likened unto the Holy Roman Empire and the League of Nations of old, the United Nations and Organization of African Unity of modern time as it has a Chairman, 1st Vice and 2nd Vice Chairmen, Secretary General, 1st and 2nd Secretaries General. For except in height and size, there can be no difference between a cottage and sky scraper both having ground foundations and roof, be it conic or flat; they both give shelter to people. Each member state retains its individual entity but they, put together, pursue concerted programs. They therefore have to operate on charters. This the Grand Coalition does not have.
The Grand Coalition has planned to convene a mass political rally which is purely the function of a political party.
This being the case, the Grand Coalition, an unlawful agreement, conspiracy, and an association must not pose as a legal entity until it conforms to, and complies with the Constitution.
Unless these two requirements are met with, this Court looks upon the Grand Coalition as a non-legal entity.
It was brought out by counsel for respondents during arguments that injunction, not prohibition, is the proper action here. A writ of injunction is a restraining order of court of competent jurisdiction placed on the defendant not to do or to continue the act complained of. It is an action cognizable before a court of first instance and of record, the circuit court. Disobedience to the restraining order subject the recalcitrant to contempt proceedings and, for this reason both the defendant and the act complained of must be within the reach and direct territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.
Respondents also argued, and plausibly too, that information is another proper action here. Information, in its legal parlance, is a criminal accusation, not indictment found by grand jury made under oath by an officer of the law. It must be venued before a subordinate court where evidence is given and admitted. Another legal information is a complaint filed before a court against the defendant for tampering with a cause already pending before it. It must stem from a pending suit. Both of the instances here are not applicable as this Court does not entertain criminal accusation made under oath, nor is there a case presently pending before it out of which an information of this nature could grow.
It was so forcefully argued that the convening of a mass political rally is a civil right matter (we ignore the fund-raising rally mentioned in the Secretary General’s letter of March 18, 1986 as flash of March 19, 1986 which went into circulation is silent on it) which no law nor order can prevent unless it is in contravention of the Constitution. This is an amazing line of reasoning as there must be no obstacle placed in the way of people in exercising the civil right guaranteed by the Constitution, except that the exercise of such civil rights is not absolute as it must end where other people’s begins. It is the civil right of every citizen to enter, other things remaining equal, into a restaurant, hotel, movie theater, or enroll in an institution of learning and demand services but this right is denied lepers and patients with tuberculosis, etc. Where the exercise of one’s civil right proves dangerous and pernicious to society the halting of it is not unconstitutional.
Therefore, where convening a mass political rally is found to be dangerous to others, it can be restrained in the interest of public order. But by what process, one might ask?
The only restraining process at the disposal of the Supreme Court is the writ of prohibition and it was so definitely and distinctly argued before us that the Grand Coalition, not being an inferior court of justice, a quasi administrative court, nor a public agency or officer, cannot legally be made susceptible to Supreme Court’s writ of prohibition. We regard this as an argument well founded because under our Constitution, the Grand Coalition, being a stranger in this jurisdiction, does not fall among those placed under the jurisdictional purview of the Supreme Court.
The reason why the Constitution confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in causes arising between two counties is that each of the counties involved is interested in the case. It is also because the judgment of the hearing county is not so effective outside its territorial limits, it being only an advisory one. However, the silence of the Constitution on persons and matters just propping up into our society can in no way serve as a deterrence on the Supreme Court from exercising original jurisdiction when no inferior court is competent so to do, and when the exigency of the issue begs it attention.
The Supreme Court, being the interpreter of the laws of the land, has the prerogative to expand, in the best interest of justice, the Constitution in all spheres not specifically alluded to.
We therefore hold, and in doing so make it abundantly clear, that under all circumstances, in all places and at all times, the interest of the Republic of Liberia comes first, the autonomy being the greatest law.
Using this as our hypothesis, we can safely make the pronouncement that the Supreme Court can assume original jurisdiction in a prohibition proceedings over persons not placed under its jurisdictional purview. Let us now halt beside our weary way and hear what common law says on this:
“An appellate court will generally be inclined to exercise original jurisdiction where the matter involved is of great public importance, where it or prerogatives or the liberties of the people or where the exercise of its original jurisdiction is necessary to prevent a denial of justice; to require a court to vacate orders in excess of its jurisdiction, or to prevent illegal action of a public official.
Ordinarily it will exercise its original jurisdiction only in a matter affecting a great number of peoples and not in a matter of merely local or private interest, although particular circumstances may justify a deviation from this general principle as for instance, where the private interest is initially connected with a public interest.” 20 AM. JUR.2d., Courts.
How snugly our case fits under this common law.
The Grand Coalition intended to convene a mass political rally to which the entire citizenry was invited and advised to awake (from slumber) “for positive action” in time of peace, and in the absence of political campaigning. Does not this intended mass political rally touch the sovereignty of the State and its prerogatives? The youths, the concerned women, the workers, the market women, all must awake for “positive action” because “victory” is theirs. What is this “positive action” for which the youths, the concerned, the market women, the workers must awake from slumber? And in what struggle is the “victory” so assured? This cannot be looked upon as a matter of mere local or private interest.
It is a matter that affects great number of people as the youths, the concerned women, the workers, and the market women are all over Liberia. Yes, this is a matter which is of great public importance and affects the sovereignty of the State and its franchise. The concern of the citizenry invited is both the concern and the prerogative of the State.
Additionally, the Grand Coalition, after receiving a letter from the Ministry of Justice on the 18th of March 1986, advising against the convening of a mass political rally, circulated leaflets on March 19, 1986, inviting the youths, the workers, concerned women, and the entire citizenry to a mass political rally on March 21, 1986. This was in total defiance of the Justice Minister’s letter. If the writ of prohibition had not been issued in time, what would have happened on the 21st March 1986, the day that was set for the mass political rally? Distribution of leaflets by the Grand Coalition on March 19, 1986, after receiving the Justice Minister’s letter forbidding the rally, was a clear indication that the Justice Minister’s letter had been disregarded and the law approved on February 10, 1975, which forbids public demonstrations and marches in the absence of express permission from the Ministry of Justice, was on the verge of being overstepped. Here is that law:
“AN ACT REQUIRING THE OBTAINING OF PERMITS FOR PUBLIC MARCHES AND DEMONSTRATIONS WHEREAS, in addition to problems relating to the health, welfare, and education of the people, the control of crime and over-crowdedness, the maintenance of order and the enforcement of discipline seem to require immediate attention; and WHEREAS, it has been observed that cities, particularly Monrovia, are becoming relatively overcrowded and there is a need to control marches and demonstrations in public to prevent traffic congestion, avoid obstruction and facilitate safe and free movement of people; NOW, WHEREFORE, It is enacted by the Senate and House of Representative of the Republic of Liberia, in Legislature assembled: Section 1. The Minister of Justice is hereby empowered to issue permits for all marches and demonstrations within the Republic. Section 2. Any group of persons desiring to stage a march or demonstration within the Republic shall first obtain from the Minister of Justice of the Republic a permit to do so. Section 3. Any group of persons who shall stage a march or demonstration in violation of the provisions of this Act shall be punishable by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars or by both fine and imprisonment. Section 4. This Act shall take effect immediately upon publication in hand bills. Any law to the contrary notwithstanding
Approved: February 10, 1975.”
The penalty attached to the violation of this law is a fine not less than one nor more than five thousand dollars and jail sentence, where necessary.
If the law of the land, enacted eleven years ago and still extent, is threatened to be walked over by a great number of people, any attempt on the part of the police to abort the convening of the mass political rally would result into a confused atmosphere. This atmosphere would create an initial crack in our national structure, a crack which could instantly develop into a valley and that will, in turn, expand into a canyon over which no man could jump.
We must note here once and for all that the easiest and surest way to kill a snake is while it is yet in the egg. Allowing the egg to hatch is inviting a struggle which could end in a snake bite, a fatal result.
The convening of the mass political rally would therefore have been calamitous to many citizens and residents.
The Supreme Court may and can properly step in, exercising original jurisdiction by writ of prohibition for the purpose of arresting a situation like the above. The interest of the State always remains paramount.
Because the Constitution is silent on the issue of whether the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over a body as the Grand Coalition does not mean that such body or group is not answerable in prohibition proceedings when the necessity arises. For we know that throughout the ages all the doings of men have not been reduced to writing:
“And there are many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
Amen.” Gospel of St. John, 21:25:
Yes, we cannot throw a case out of court because the party involved falls without the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and no subordinate court can adequately handle the situation. A writ of injunction issued by a lower court, the circuit court, affects only the people of the county where the court has jurisdiction.
The Grand Coalition — LAP, LUP and UP — has membership all over the country. A judgment entered in an action of injunction against it by the court, say, of Grand Bassa County, does not obtain in Margibi County to which both the Grand Coalition and the convening of the mass political rally could conveniently move. A judgment must be enforceable and where the trial court is impotent to enforce its judgment, it might as well not try the cause.
Both the Grand Coalition of Parties et al., respondents, and the subject matter, the convening of mass political rally, in this petition are transitory and, like birds, are apt to fly off at any moment. The only court able to supervise the enforcement of its judgment over them is the Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia and therefore, for the stability of the State, the safety of the great number of people, and the involvement of public interest, the Court has exercised original jurisdiction in this case and will continue so to do under similar circumstances.
In view of the foregoing, we hold that the petition for a writ of prohibition is hereby granted, the alternative writ upheld, and the peremptory writ ordered issued. And it is so ordered.
Petition granted.