24/02/2024
The political leader of the Office of Senator Augustine S. Chea, Chairman on Judiciary, Claims and Petitions, and Chairman of the Sinoe Legislative Caucus writes:
“Does the Tenure Law Violate Article 56 of the Constitution?
I disagree with the President's Legal Advisor and others who said the tenure law violates Article 56 of the Constitution or that the President did nothing wrong by appointing people to positions or offices occupied by tenure holders, citing the Supreme Court's decision in the Edward Kla Martin, former LACC Chairman's case as their reliance.
The President's Legal Advisor and others misread the Supreme Court's opinion or don't fully understanding contract law. The Supreme Court ruled in that case that Cllr. Martin be paid for the unexpired period of his tenure because his contract rights were violated; and that the Government must "respect the sanctity of contracts" as enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution. Then they interpret that to mean that tenured officials have only contract rights, but no tenure because the tenure law violates Article 56 of the Constitution, which empowers the President to remove at will his appointees.
So what is this contract that the Supreme Court upheld? It is the tenure. And it is the tenure law that provides for tenure for three years, four years, five years, etc.; that certain categories of public officials -- i.e., those who have tenure -- will be protected from being removed from office by the President at will until they serve their full tenure.
If the tenure law was unconstitutional, as they said, or if the Supreme Court invalidated the law, the Supreme Court would not rule that Cllr. Martin benefits from that 'illegal law.' If a contract is void (not voidable), it is void ab initio, meaning, it is invalid from its very inception or from the day it was made. Conversely, if the Supreme Court declares a statute or law unconstitutional, it is not law from the day it was enacted; and, therefore, no rights will accrue under that statute or law.
The legislative intent for the tenure law is to preserve the integrity, professionalism, autonomy, and independence of certain public institutions, so that the heads of those institutions will do their work uncompromised and without fear of being removed by the President at will. And this law promotes good governance. Isn't it? So, why should anybody have a problem with that? Is it because some people want the jobs so badly and don't want to wait for the position holders' tenure to expire, or is it vengeance? Wow! But this is the kind of evil the law was enacted to prevent.
The appointments to tenured positions where the position holders still have a tenure is illegal as it violates the tenure law. The President was ill-advised by his Legal Advisor, so he must now act to rescind or revoke his appointments.
I will advise the Senate not to confirm anybody so appointed. Because, doing so, will make us accomplices to this law violation.
"Love Liberia, build Liberia [on the foundation of the rule of law]."
Senator Augustine S. Chea
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee”