Senate Action May Face Challenges of Legality, Constitutionality, If…

13
3350
Cllr. Philip A. Z. Banks at yesterday's impeachment trial as 'expert witness.'

Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Cllr Philip A. Z. Banks, has warned that if rules of procedure for the impeachment trial of Justice Kabineh Ja’neh was prepared only by the House of Representatives, as the Legislature, “any action by the Senate (jurors ) will face challenges of legality and constitutionality.”

Cllr. Banks, who spoke as expert witness in the over five hours proceedings in the Chambers of the Senate on Thursday, March 21, 2019, also lectured that the rules of procedure in impeachment proceeding is important, because at least in the minds of the framers of the 1986 Constitution, it prevents arbitrariness so that no impeachment would be taken because of someone’s selfish reason.

If there were rules of procedure, former Justice Banks said, the House was under obligation to abide by those rules of procedures in order that the impeachment is legitimized.

“And this, Mr. Chief Justice, is important at least in our own legal sphere; if what the House did was illegal or unconstitutional, any action by the Senate will face challenges of legality and Constitutionality.”

The former Justice’s statement is due to the fact that the Senate is serving as Jurors whose vote will determine the fate of the trial.

He wondered, “how do you proceed with impeachment if there are no uniform rules as directed by the Constitution?”

He said Article 43 is very clear when it states that the Legislature, not separate Houses, shall prescribe the procedure for impeachment proceedings, which shall be in conformity with the requirements of due process of law.

“I think part of the problem may have been a longevity of inaction by the Legislature to complete the mandate of the Constitution to promulgate procedures; it didn’t say wait until you have somebody whom you think might have done a wrong, then you have to go and do it, No. It said you are mandated to promulgate rule of procedure to govern impeachment.”

He said that it took the Legislature 33 years, and that only after the House of Representatives has decided to proceed with impeachment proceedings, that there was the attempt to formulate rules.

“This was not the intent of the framers of the 1986 Constitution, certainly it was not the intent of the framers that rules would be promulgated, specifically designed to target a specific individual,” Banks told the hearing.

The rule of procedure, he said, has to be designed to cover all individuals, and that the framers of the Constitution believe that because this would be a process so that there would be consistency in the application of the conditions laid down in the Constitution as the basis for impeaching and removing a Justice from office and, for that matter, any official.

With respect to the current proceeding, Justice Banks, who made comparative historic references of both the 1847 and1986 Constitutions, said that if the Legislature had followed the mandate of the Constitution to the letter to prepare a standing rule of procedure, all crimes or what constitutes impeachment offenses such gross misconduct and abuse of power, among others, the current seeming legal controversy would have been unnecessary.

Due to the marathon proceeding, the Chief Justice called the proceeding adjourned until Monday, March 25, 2019, when the House of Representatives legal team will cross-examine Justice Banks.

13 COMMENTS

  1. Banks has no case! condemn him forthwith!

    For the phrase “enacting style” vis the passing of all legslations” by the Legislature IS ABSOLUTELY ABOUT THE PASSING OF LAWS, AND NOT THE MAKING OF RULES OF THE TWO INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE HOUSES WITH ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS (IMPEACHMENT BY THE HOUSE AND TRIAL BY THE SDENATE) when the action of a judge has been called into question!

    How on earth can two independent powers enact a single rule when what the rules are about are about TWO SEPARATE, AND DIFFERENT WORKINGS …IMPEACHMENT by the House AND TRIAL by the Senate? Banks etc. etc, need to go back to law school and study well statutory and or constitutional interpretations! Bunch of dullards

    Now, let us turn his Banks´ argument on its own head viz his arguement about Article 29!

    Article 29
    The legislative power of the Republic shall be vested in the Legislature of

    Liberia which shall consist of two separate houses: A Senate and a House of

    Representatives, both of which must pass on all legislation. The enacting style

    shall be: “It is enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

    Republic of Liberia in Legislature assembled.”

    Now what dull and corrupt Philip Banks fails to assimilate or at least pretends not to have long assimilated is that:

    Just as Article 44 states “Contempt of the Legislature shall consist of actions which obstruct the legislative functions or whichobstruct or impede members of of officers of the Lgislature in the discharge of their legislative duties and may be punished by the HOUSE CONCERNED by reasonable sanctions after a hearing consistent with due process,” such contempt on the part of whosoever CANNOT BE SAID TO BE MADE AGAINST THE COLLECTIVITY OF THE JOINT HOUSES BEFORE SUCH PERSON OR CULPRIT BE SAID TO BE HELD IN CONTEMPT!

    And this is why you see the phrase “THE HOUSE CONCERNED” For both Houses have their independent and SINGULAR POWER, PREROGATIVE, AND JURISDICTION to adopt their own rules as enumerated and made clear in their separate roles or fundamental workings viz:

    (1 IMPEACHMENT BY THE HOUSE and

    (2) CONVICTION AND REMOVAL BY THE SENATE!!!

    So, this elementary or layman´s LITERAL READING of Article 43 viz the word “Legislature”, when each House makes their OWN RULES on matters each has to deal with, simply because article 29 “talks about” :The enacting style shall be:

    “It is enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    Republic of Liberia in Legislature assembled” IS ABSOLUTELY BASELESS AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CONSTITUTIONAL LIGAMENTS TO IMPEACHMENT!

    For in accordance with statutory interpretation viz how the the words in issue (eg. Legislature, enacting style) fit in with the rest of their RESPECTIVE ARTICLES OR RESPECTIVE CLAUSES, “Legislature” therein (article 43 final clause) simply means the SEPARATE HOUSES ADOPTING THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT RULES VIZ IMPEACHMENT (by the House) , and Conviction, acquittal, or removal by the Senate!

    While the phrase “enacting style” and the entire Article 29 is totally and absolutely about MAKING LAWS WHICH ARE THE POWERS OF JOINT HOUSES! AND ABSOLUTELY NOT ABOUT MAKING NOR ADOPTING THEIR OWN RULES!!!

    How on earth can two independent powers enact a single rule when what the rules are about are about TWO SEPARATE, AND DIFFERENT WORKINGS …IMPEACHMENT by the House AND TRIAL by the Senate?

    Banks etc. etc, need to go back to law school and study well statutory and or constitutional interpretations! Bunch of dullards!

    Look Philip, it was during the war years crooks as you could fool the Liberian people and not get exposed! Things have changed with legal minded erudits as Dortu-Siboe Doe around, not to talk about the fact that those thirty men and women in the Senate are more than aware that unlike judicial trials, where most procedures and standards are knowable in advance, impeachmens are tried before a Court that often lacks consisten or agreed-upon rules, changes them in midway, or even refuses to reveal them to parties.

    That is the rules are governed by the whims of the 30 men and women with offices in the Capitol, AND NOT offices of a retired crook and very notorious and corrupt Philip Banks.

    In short, The Senate itself must decide whether and to what extent the strictures of Due Process Clause even apply to impeachment trials, as made overwhelmingly evident that THE JURORS´S VERDICT CAN OVERRIDE THE DECISION OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE.

    Finally, assimilate henceforth, and forthwith that in structuring impeachment proceedings, the Senate has virtually unbounded discretion. The Senate´s SOLE POWER to try ALL impeachments(Article 43) thus includes the authority to redefine or eliminate almost every standard feature of a judicial trial.So your rubbish about impeachment could be challenged in court is simply silly!

  2. Banks is a corrupt LIAR by spewiing such rubblish as:

    “How do you proceed with impeachment if there is no uniformed rule as directed by the Constitution so that there can be one set of rules and not the two Houses having two separate sets of conduct? By this, one can see the necessity to have these rules, which should have been crafted six months after the constitution came into effect in 1986″? Philip Banks LYING TO HIMSELF!

    Philip Banks, How on earth can two independent powers enact a single rule when what the rules are about are about TWO SEPARATE, AND DIFFERENT WORKINGS …IMPEACHMENT by the House AND TRIAL by the Senate? Banks etc. etc, need to go back to law school and study well statutory and or constitutional interpretations! Banks you are not only corrupt, you are a dullard!

    Even if you do not want to check the Liberian Constitution for some reasons, see how impeachments are carried out in America to whose Constitution the Liberian Constitution from A TO Z is a full and absolute REPLICA!

    SEE FOR YOURSELF AND DO NOT LISTEN TO THAT RASCAL AND FORMER STOOGE OF ELLEN WHO BROUGHT SO MUCH DISREPUTE AND DISGRACE UPON THE SUPREME COURT! THERE IS NOTHING LIKE THE MAKING OF JOINT RULES BY FOR IMPEACHMENT IN THE LIBERIAN CONSTITUTION. THE CONSTITUTION SAYS EACH HOUSE ADOPTS ITS OWN RULES. BANKS IS READING THE FINAL CLAUSE OF ARTICLE 43 IN BAD FAITH LITERALLY TO FACILITATE HIS INFIDELITY AGAINST THE LIBERIAN CONSTITUTION. HE TAKES THE SAME INFIDELITY TO ARTICLE 29 WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY NOT ABOUT RULES BUT ABOUT THE PASSAGE OF LAWS BY THE LEGISLATURE! BANKS IS A LIAR!

    CULLED FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

    What are the rules?

    There are no standard rules. Rather, the Senate passes a resolution first laying out trial procedures.

    “When the Senate decided what the rules were going to be for our trial, they really made them up as they went along,” said Greg Craig, who helped defend Mr. Clinton in his impeachment proceeding and later served as White House counsel to President Barack Obama.

    For example, Mr. Craig said, the initial rules in that case gave four days to the Republican managers to make a case for conviction, followed by four days for the president’s legal team to defend him — essentially opening statements. The Senate then decided whether to hear witnesses, and if so, whether it would be live or on videotape. Eventually, the Senate permitted each side to depose several witnesses by videotape.

    The rules adopted by the Senate in the Clinton trial — including limiting the number of witnesses and the length of depositions — made it harder to prove a case compared with trials in federal court, said former Representative Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican who served as a House manager during the trial and is also a former United States attorney.

    “Impeachment is a creature unto itself,” Mr. Barr said. “The jury in a criminal case doesn’t set the rules for a case and can’t decide what evidence they want to see and what they won’t.”

    What are the standards?

    The Constitution allows for the impeachment and removal of a president for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” But no controlling authority serves as a check on how lawmakers choose to interpret that standard, which makes it as much a question of political will as of legal analysis.

    Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

    A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

    Sign Up

    In the case of Mr. Clinton’s trial, for example, Robert Byrd, a Democratic senator from West Virginia at the time, told his colleagues that he thought Mr. Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury but that removing him from office was a bad idea.

    “To drop the sword of Damocles now, given the bitter political partisanship surrounding this entire matter, would only serve to further undermine a public trust that is too much damaged already,” he said. “Therefore, I will reluctantly vote to acquit.”

    Mr. Clinton was impeached by a Congress in which the opposition party controlled both the House and the Senate. In Mr. Trump’s case, his party controls both chambers, making it more politically unappealing for them to vote to impeach him.
    LIBERIA

    CULLED FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

    • Where did you get your lie , Mr. Siboe Doe, the intellectual Kru man of all Kru people that at present, the political party of US President ” controls both chambers ” ? What a lie ? Perhaps that information was meant for Mr. Yah , a strong supporter of yours that believes in every viewpoint written by you. Mr Yah will do himself no harm by studying very hard . It is good for the mind, rather than depending on the educational experience or knowledge of other people. Mr. Siboe Doe education of the constitution of Liberia is a fake one.

      • Mr. James Davis, I HAVE NEVER AND CAN NEVER EVER make such assertion! I am too educated in Law, Mass Communications, and Politics, to make such a statement. You must have been dreaming to have that come to your mind!

  3. Senate Action Faces ABSOLUTELY NO Challenges of Legality, OR Constitutionality, AFTER JANEH´S CONVICTION, ACQUITTAL, OR REMOVAL! Banks´ argument about:

    “How do you proceed with impeachment if there is no uniformed rule as directed by the Constitution so that there can be one set of rules and not the two Houses having two separate sets of conduct? By this, one can see the necessity to have these rules, which should have been crafted six months after the constitution came into effect in 1986″? IS TOTALLY BASELESS AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NO LIGAMENT TO LAW NOR TO LIBERIA´S CONSTITUTIONAL XYLEM! FOR:

    How on earth can two independent powers enact a single rule when what the rules are about are about TWO SEPARATE, AND DIFFERENT WORKINGS …IMPEACHMENT by the House AND TRIAL by the Senate? Banks etc. etc, need to go back to law school and study well statutory and or constitutional interpretations!

    Banks is deliberately misinterpreting articles 29 and 43 to carried out his delvish and corrupt INFIDELITY TOWARDS THE LIBERIAN CONSTITUION! Each House adopts its own rules for their respective separate and different works! IMPEACHMENT BY THE HOUSE and TRIAL BY THE SENATE!

    Article 29 is about the passage of laws and not rules! And this is why the very constitution to which ours is a complete replica for impeachment By the House and impeachment trial By the Senate is this way infra:

    CULLED FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

    What are the rules?

    “There are no standard rules. Rather, the Senate passes a resolution first laying out trial procedures.”

    “When the Senate decided what the rules were going to be for our trial, they really made them up as they went along,” said Greg Craig, who helped defend Mr. Clinton in his impeachment proceeding and later served as White House counsel to President Barack Obama.

    For example, Mr. Craig said, the initial rules in that case gave four days to the Republican managers to make a case for conviction, followed by four days for the president’s legal team to defend him — essentially opening statements. The Senate then decided whether to hear witnesses, and if so, whether it would be live or on videotape. Eventually, the Senate permitted each side to depose several witnesses by videotape.

    The rules adopted by the Senate in the Clinton trial — including limiting the number of witnesses and the length of depositions — made it harder to prove a case compared with trials in federal court, said former Representative Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican who served as a House manager during the trial and is also a former United States attorney.

    “Impeachment is a creature unto itself,” Mr. Barr said. “The jury in a criminal case doesn’t set the rules for a case and can’t decide what evidence they want to see and what they won’t.”

    What are the standards?

    The Constitution allows for the impeachment and removal of a president for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” But no controlling authority serves as a check on how lawmakers choose to interpret that standard, which makes it as much a question of political will as of legal analysis.

    Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

    A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

    Sign Up

    In the case of Mr. Clinton’s trial, for example, Robert Byrd, a Democratic senator from West Virginia at the time, told his colleagues that he thought Mr. Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury but that removing him from office was a bad idea.

    “To drop the sword of Damocles now, given the bitter political partisanship surrounding this entire matter, would only serve to further undermine a public trust that is too much damaged already,” he said. “Therefore, I will reluctantly vote to acquit.”

    Mr. Clinton was impeached by a Congress in which the opposition party controlled both the House and the Senate. In Mr. Trump’s case, his party controls both chambers, making it more politically unappealing for them to vote to impeach him.
    LIBERIA

    CULLED FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

  4. Mr. Doe, you might have the energy to sit and write but when it comes to how you transcend your writings and infuse the dynamism of facts and care in telling people of issues, you have to be careful. It is not about writing long scripts that matters my friend, but the sense and facts must be in congruent with the issue abyss and pro non-sequitur.
    Now, my attention was drawn to the paragraph of the American politics that went on for many years ago and the present. The issue of Bill Clinton did not happened the way you have written. The House of Representative was a Republican controlled one with Newt Gingrich, being the Speaker.That body was the one that recommended for the impeachment of Bill; however due to Democrats control of the Senate at that time the impeachment process was voted out by the majority Democrats of the senate and never went into effect.
    Currently, Trump is in a hot seat due to the fact things have changed and the House is controlled by the Democrats who are contemplating on impeaching him as one of their campaign promises to the American people; gone this November. At present the Congress is controlled by the Democrats and Republicans, with Democrats in the House in the majority and the Republicans in the majority of the Senate.

    John Mannah, New York

    • According to your last sentence, the young self proclaimed intellectual lawyer Mr. Siboe Doe is still lying. And he believes that the political party of the US President is in control of Congress. That’s the spirit of a Kru man, can’t beat them down. If one should beat them down, then that person will have to beat them at the beach in West Point or New Kru Town. Ok, Mr. Siboe Doe, you win . Don’t want you to take me down on the beach . But you are still a great intellectual person. Very much so, but nice try on this one.

    • Mr.Mannah, certainly you may not have much energy to articulate adequately. But it seems you also do not have the intellect to do so even at an expected level. If you do have, please fire your argument.

      Now, in as much as that publication we proffered is true and correct, we did not write it as you apparently inadvertently seem to believe and asserted. visit our articulations on frontpageafrica and see the link we shared and which provided that information. Accordingly, Mr. Mannah, what we should be engaged with is our individual arguments and not waste time and ink on examples which have not originated from us but are only shared to give some light on the subject matter. Banks has put forward his argument/thesis. I have fired an anti-thesis via my argument which is this:

      How on earth can two independent powers enact a single rule when what the rules are about are about TWO SEPARATE, AND DIFFERENT WORKINGS …IMPEACHMENT by the House AND TRIAL by the Senate? Banks etc. etc, need to go back to law school and study well statutory and or constitutional interpretations! Where is yours? Do you have any?

      So according to you as the word “Legislature ” is used in Article 44 on one bèen held in contempt, the act of contempt must be against the TWO Houses put together; to qualify as an act of contempt as prescribed in Article 44, and not just an act of contempt against a single House; but still, the very article says punishment shall be made by the House concerned?

      Or better still, if Banks’ argument is constitutionally logical that the both Houses must jointly prepare or prescribe rules of procedure for impeachment, WHY would the very article 38 mentioned by you stipulate that “each house shall prescribe its own rules of procedure”?

      And then, in an immediate succeeding stipulation (article 43) provides that IMPEACHMENT proceedings is the SOLELY vested in the House of Representatives, whilst, THE TRIAL for impeachment is SOLELY vested in the Senate?

      The WORD SOLELY is not only used to ensure that neither the judiciary nor the executive has anything to do with impeachment or the trial of impeachment.

      The WORD SOLELY is used TWICE DIRECTLY PARTICULARISING THE SPECIFIC different tasks of each House which NEITHER HOUSE has the power, authority, or jurisdiction to be a part of in anyway!!!

      So there is absolutely no way the word “Legislature ” as used in Article 43 could ever mean the both Houses are expected to jointly prescribe a SINGLE rule for two different, distinct, and separate, and independent SOLE RESPONSIBILITIES – responsibilities which neither HOUSE has absolutely NOTHING to do with the responsibility of the other!

      Thus, Article 38 specifies that EACH HOUSE shall prescribe its own rules of procedure , for as made clearer in Article 43, each has ITS OWN SOLE POWER AUTHORITY, AND JURISDICTION !

      Banks is SIMPLY been very disingenuously stupid by reaching such conclusions and even mentioning article 29 which even a layman knows is about the passage of laws AND NOT ABOUT RULES OF PROCEDURES

  5. But why any think that Justice Banks could be if the Senate failed to protect their decision? In every case resulting from an actual courtroom ruling, Liberians are encouraged to appeal the rulings of the Court to the Supreme Court. Since this setting is not an actual courtroom proceedings but a political setting, it would be best that through the procedures lay down legally, the accused has to be informed of his rights that through the procedures lay down by the legislature, there will be no Appeals from the proceedings to the Supreme Court, neither should the Supreme allowed any hearings from the proceedings. Then the accused is informed that the proceedings and decisions are not based on the actual procedures and proceedings of that of any Court in the land . And once the due process of law was followed to the letter and throughout the proceedings there will be no Appeals. This is one of the reasons why the constitution mandates that the legislature shall prescribe the procedures for the impeachment proceedings that will come before the Senate. But they refused to follow through on the mandate. Justice Banks believes some how the since each House adopted their own rules and procedures, there is that possibility that the Senate did not protect their verdict that there will be no Appealing of the verdict in any court in the country. As it stands the constitution recognized the Supreme Court as the final arbiter in any case of records or not of records ( whatever that means) and the Senate verdict makes the Senate seems as the final arbiter. That’s the reason they should protect their verdict. Perhaps, this is the constitutionality spoken of by Justice Banks. As we all know in that country, the question is always asked, show me the law that says one can not appeal any verdict from any proceedings coming out of the Senate. Show the law , and will you it is not in the procedures adopted by the Senate rules to impeach. The accused Justice as a citizen, can he appeal his verdict to the Supreme Court if there is no law against appealing. The Senate left themselves open for all kinds of interpretations. All because they depended on the legal knowledge of one man , the indicted Senator from Grand Cape. His goal is represent himself as the most powerful political influential figure in the Senate so his law office can get the benefits over other law offices around the country. It is only a business decision by the Senator. Something that his fellow Senators do not know. Just business, that’s the Sheman way of doing business.

    • Mr. Davis, BEFORE GOING TO SUMMONS OR HEARING IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF JANEH´S LAWYER OR JANEH HIMSELF (ALSO A LAWYER, A JUDGE AT THAT) TO BE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE LAW VIS A VIS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CASES OR CONTROVERSIES, ON THE ONE HAND, AND ON THE OTHER HAND AN IMPEACHMENT!

      FOR IGNORANCE OF THE LAW OR THE CONSTITUTION which includes the historic practices of the House of Representatives , the President, and the Senate, previous judicial decisions or precedents, public expectations, practical consideration, and moral and political values, NEITHER EXUSES NOR EXONERATES ANYONE! So, Mr. Davis that perception of yours etc. that the House of Representatives or the Senate should have prepared whether joint or separate rules informing a Supreme Court´s Justice or Judge that there there are no appeals to impeachment or conviction and removal is pointless and totally lackadaiisical.

      Nor does such perception of yours and the disingenuous stupidity of Philip Banks that “impeachment and conviction could be challenged in court” have the qualification to pass the scrutiny of reason, article 38, 43, or 44 which inter alia provide that “each House shall prescribe its own rules of procedures, impeachment is THE SOLE POWER of the House of Representatives, while impeachment conviction, acquittal, or removal, is THE SOLE POWER of the Senate”!

      NOW FOR THE JUDGEMENT IN DETAIL FROM JUDGE DORTU-SIBOE DOE OF THE GREAT COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION TO MR. JAMES DAVIS AND CORRUPT PHILIP BANKS:

      Mr. James Davis, contrary to what you asserted about “political uncertainty” there will be absolutely no political uncertainty, but rather a clear, settled, assured, confirmed, decided, and unquestionably positive and indisputable predictable future!

      As thunderforth in the begining paragraphs supra, neither the Legislature in toto had to prepare and joint rules of procedures for in accordance with CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXTUAL HARMONIZATION viz the canons of interpretation, article 38, in its initial clause, makes clear that EACH HOUSE SHALL PREPARE ITS OWN RUES OF PROCEDURES.

      And that is besides the fact that Article 44 highlghts and and reverberates that by using the word Legislature in the CONTEMPT CLAUSE, but of course not meaning that one can only be charged with contempt if or when such culpability is targeted against the two Houses jointly or collectively.

      Secondly, interpretation of the Constitution depends on a variety of considerations external to the text. These include the histori practices of the two HOUSES and the President, previous judicial decisions or precedents, practical considerations, public expectations, and moral and political values.

      And in none of these varieties of onsiderations has the House or the Senate ever had to prepare a joint rules of procedure, or even had to inform the culprit about appealability or nonappealability before, during, or after impeachment by the House or conviction and removal by the Senate. NEVER! Janeh a judge should know this as much as his lawyers should have reminded him, if he is ignorant of such jurisprudential factuality or phenomenon!

      Not to talk about Philip Banks disingenuous stupidity which has added insult to injury when he clowns that impeachment conviction could be challenged in court. What a height of dullardry!

      For Articles 44, 65,, and 66, make manifest very clearly that the judicial power or its final arbitership extends ONLY to cases, or controversies, or cases of a Judiciary nature, AND NOT AND ABSOLUTELY NEVER OF POLITICAL QUESTIONS AS AN IMPEACHMENT!

      Thus Article 43 thunders that the House shall have THE SOLE POWER for impeachmens, while The SENATE shall have THE SOLE POWER to try all impeachments!

      So, with the jurisprudential or legal principle that ignorance of the law neither excuses nor exonerates anyone,corrupt Philip Banks, and his former accomplice both of whom were to be impeached not too long ago, better rescind their pointless nonsensicalities about joint legislative rules of procedures which cannot withstand the letter and spirit of the first clause of Article 38, nor the ultimate purpose and implementive unstoppable and indomitable force and power of the respective and independent sovereign vested powers of the two separate, distinct, and independently different HOUSES SEPARATELY conducting impeachments, and impeachments trial RESPECTIVELY!

      And this is why you should immediately rescind that percption that:

      “They left their decision open for constitutional Challenge and interpretations. Reason , the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional issues.” Again, this is why the principles of law and the Liberian Constitution and its statutory laws grant the right of counsels to culprits, whether of cases before the court, or impeachment before the House and the Senate

      Áccordingly, let the word go forth from this time and Place that:

      (1) ignorance of the law exonerates no one!

      (2) article 38, 43, or 44 inter alia provide that “each House shall prescribe its own rules of procedures, impeachment is THE SOLE POWER of the House of Representatives, while impeachment conviction, acquittal, or removal, is THE SOLE POWER of the Senate”!

      (3 ) mpeachments are unpardonable, and unappealable, and can only be challenged by a majority members of the House!, While conviction or removal CAN ONLY be challenged by two thirds majority of the Senate, NOT BY EVEN THE ONE PRESIDING,, and by no entity,individual, group, nor any other branch of Government! THATS THE LIMITS OF JUDICIAL OWER … A NO GO AREA FOR THE JUDICIARY!!!

  6. The impeachment trial of one judge, whether corrupt or not, is taking more time to adjudicate than expected. I wonder what would have happened if two judges were being impeached for similar reasons. Too much time and there seems to be no end in sight. Old lady Constance may never get her land back. Without doubt, the Ja’neh impeachment trial is a case of historic proportions.

  7. F.S. Hney, justice is slow but sure! Impeachment cases are never an overnight affair. Alcee L Hastings, a judge of the US District Court for Southern District of Forida was impeached by the House on August 3, 1988. He had been found impeachable on seventeen counts of conspiracy to receive bribe in a 1981 criminal case making false statements during his 1983 trial on conspiracy and obstruction of justice charges, and disclosing confidential information from an FBI wiretap. Janeh=s abuses and wrong doings or impeachable ffenses have so much similarities with that of Hastings who was convicted by the Senae 69 to26 on October 19, 1989. He was convicted on eight of of of eleven articles of impeachment of the total of seventeen in which it voted, finding him guilty of the conspiracy as well as repeatedly lying under oath at his trial and forging letters in order to win acquittal. JUSTICE IS SLOW BUT SURE.

  8. Comrade Dortu-Siboe Doe,
    I totally agree with you. It certainly takes time to settle impeachment cases. In addition to the Hastings’ case which you properly outlined, I go back in time to the Clinton impeachment trial of the 1990s. It took time to jump over the Clinton impeachment hump during those horrendous years of the 1990s.

    However, the Kabineh Ja’neh impeachment trial doesn’t seem to go anywhere. Ja’neh’s defense team has been unable to put forth any strong exculpatory evidence that could exonerate their guy. It seems also that Ja’neh is at the mercy of the Liberian senate. Ja’neh as you know, was a member of the club. You know what I mean. There aren’t new revelations about the case one way or the other. It seems that the chief judge of the land as well as the jurors (the Liberian senate) have no opinion one way or the other. Or are they playing stupendous games?

    There are some who state unequivocally that Ja’neh bought the land legally. Yet, there are others who swear that Ja’neh was and is unscrupulous. Ja’neh’s critics assert that he knew that the land he was buying had a question mark. Who’s telling the truth?

    If Ja’neh is impeached, it simply means that he’s guilty. However, will he return the land to old lady Constance? Will he be jailed? Also, if he returns the land (assuming that he’s found guilty) will his money be returned to him with interest?
    Comrade Siboe Doe, you’re a lawyer. I am not. My background is in Management and Education. Do you think our country’s judiciary system needs an upgrade in order to expedite complicated court cases?

Leave a Reply