Below the Header Ad
Politics

Ja’neh wants US$25m from GoL

Above Article Ad

-ECOWAS court rule today

Justices at the ECOWAS court will today decide whether they will award former Associate Justice Kabineh M Ja’neh over US$25 million in general damage as compensation and direct the government to restore his position as Associate Justice at the Supreme Court.

Cllr. Janeh was removed as an Association Justice of the Liberian Supreme Court through an impeachment process that he is now challenging as unconstitutional.

He has also asked the Court to declare that the entire impeachment trial, conviction and replacement on the Supreme Court constitutes violations of his rights to fair hearing, dignity of his person and work under equitable and satisfactory conditions, among others

Ja’neh argues that under Chapter VII, Article 72 (B) of the 1986 Liberian Constitution, he was guaranteed the holding and protection of office as Associate Justice during good behavior until the age of 70.

However, lawmakers here brought charges against him to the contrary and hence his removal from office which he is now challenging.

One of the cases which triggered Associate Justice Ja’neh’s impeachment trial in Liberia related to a land dispute involving him and one Madam Annie Yancy Constance.

He was accused by lawmakers for abuse of power, using his influence as Associate Justice to secure a ruling in his favor at the Supreme Court to take possession of the land.

But Ja’neh’s lawyers maintained that the claim that their client allegedly manipulated the Supreme Court to rule in his favor in the property case questions the credibility of Chief Justice Francis S. Korkpor who served as the head of the Supreme Court and also signed the ruling.

In the suit he filed before the ECOWAS Court, Ja’neh through his Counsel, Mr. Femi Falana alleged that his removal violated his human rights to fair hearing and impartial trail, right to work and dignity of person guaranteed by the African Charter on Human and Peoples rights.

He also claimed violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the Liberian Constitution by the purported impeachment, trail, conviction, removal and his replacement.

Further, he alleged that he was subjected to impeachment proceedings with no Prescribed Rules of Procedure, thereby depriving him of his fundamental right to fair hearing as stipulated in the 1986 Liberian Constitution.

According to former Justice Ja’neh, when the impeachment trial commenced at the Liberian Senate on 13 February 2019, he filed a motion to recuse asking that the Chief Justice should not preside over the impeachment trial since he signed the Judgment of the Supreme Court in a case that was listed as one of the grounds for his impeachment

He submitted that allowing the Chief Justice Francis Korkpor to preside would be tantamount to a conflict of interest with the possibility of bias. His contention was that Chief Justice Korkpor was involved in several facets of the impeachment proceedings and was expected to recuse himself in order to adhere to the tenets of justice.

He stated that to his surprise, the Chief Justice denied his application and instead proceeded to preside over the impeachment trial.

He is therefore asking the ECOWAS Court to award general damages in an amount not less than US$25,000,000.00 as compensation and an order directing the Republic of Liberia to restore his position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Liberia.

He also asked the Court to declare that the entire impeachment trial, conviction and replacement on the Supreme Court constitutes violations of his rights to fair hearing, dignity of his person and work under equitable and satisfactory conditions, among others

But the Republic of Liberia denied violating the human rights of Ja’neh and submitted that the impeachment was done through a political process which also followed the due process of law as laid down in Section 43 of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia.

The State urged the Court to declare that the application is inadmissible because the Community Court is incompetent to review, interpret and apply the national constitution and domestic laws of Member States.

Related Articles

Back to top button