5)  Taking of Hostages:
The perpetrator seizes, detains or otherwise holds hostage one of more people. The perpetrator threatened to kill, injure or continue to detain such person or persons for personal or financial gain and material benefit.
6)  Outrages upon Personal Dignity:
The perpetrator humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of one or more persons. The severity of the humiliation, degradation or other violation was of such degree as to be generally recognized as an outrage upon personal dignity of unarmed people.
7)  Kidnapping:
an accused is guilty of kidnapping if he unlawfully removes another from his place of residence or business, or substantial distance from the vicinity where he is found, or if he unlawfully confines another for a substantial period in a place of isolation, with any of the following purposes in mind:

1. To hold for ransom or reward;
   ii.  To use him as a shield or hostage;
   iii.  To hold him in condition of involuntary servitude;
   iv.  To facilitate commission of any felony or flight thereafter;
   v.   To inflict bodily injury on or to terrorized the victim or another;

Economic Crime:

1. A)  Economic Crime: – A person is guilty of a first degree felony, if he/she, engaged in any activity by a public or private person of any nationality, or domestic or international corporate entity conducting or facilitating business in or related to Liberia, or on behalf of the Liberian government, a Liberian business, or Liberian resident or citizen, that generates illicit profit either individually or collectively or in any organized manner by engaging in, fraud, narcotic drug trafficking, money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, looting and any form of corruption and malpractices, etc. against a nation state and people.
2. B) Fraud on the Internal Revenue of Liberia:

A person is guilty of a first degree felony, if he/she:

1. Knowingly conspires or colludes to defraud the Government of Liberia;
   ii.  Knowingly makes an opportunity for any person to defraud the Government of
   Liberia or another;
   iii.  Does or omits to do any act with intent to enable another to defraud the
   Government of Liberia; and
   iv.  Makes or signs any fraudulent entry in any book or record of any Ministry or
   agency of the Government or signs any fraudulent certificate, return or
   statement.  Actually, the list could go on when it comes to this crime.

We are fully aware and are witnesses to the fact that during the nearly 15 years of armed conflict in Liberia, all the warring factions and their leaders intentionally violated all of the provisions of law cited above during the armed conflict in Liberia.  The Final Report of the TRC along these lines is strongly support by us. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, PP 3-10, ICRC Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law, and International Human Rights, PP  1-2
D} Individual Criminal Responsibility
Any person that plans, instigates, commits, aids and abets in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime is responsible for the crime. Further, any person, or persons, groups or entities involved in a joint criminal enterprise or conspiracy including those that planned, instigated, ordered, committed, aided or abetted the planning, preparation or execution of any crime referred to under international human rights law, international humanitarian law, the laws of war, irrespective of that perpetrator’s official position, whether a President or Head of State, government official, or elected representative, irrespective of the accused citizenship or status in the  society shall not be absolved from criminal responsibility nor mitigate the punishment for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. All the warring factions and their leaders are clearly responsible for the crimes that they committed from 1989 to 2003 in Liberia. We also strongly support and uphold this aspect of the Final Report of the TRC because that all the warring factions and their leaders notoriously and openly committed violations of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and the laws of war, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Liberia. Obligation to Respect, Ensure Respect for and Implement International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law; The Scope of Obligation; Statute of Limitations, PP 1-6. And Individual Criminal Responsibility, P 17.
Whether it be in war time or peace time, state and non-state’s actors obligation under international human rights law, international humanitarian law, the laws of war are never suspended when it comes to promoting, respecting and upholding human rights compliance in Africa. We also strongly support the Final Report of the TRC and recommend that all warring faction leaders, supporters, and their financiers be accordingly indicted, tried and sentenced consistent with the crimes that they committed from 1989 to 2003 in Liberia. Since and because no amount of domestic statute of limitation or the Constitution of Liberia can be used to shield or legally shelter human rights violators from facing the full force and effect of the law, we overwhelmingly and forcefully acquiesce and support the final report of the TRC as released because it represents a structural and constructive roadmap to true reconciliation, justice and peace in Liberia.  We also further, support the findings that all political and financial leaders of the warring factions and supporters of the war in Liberia be banned from holding public office for 30 years as determined and recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia and they must also be required to criminally and civilly account for their unlawful behaviors from 89 to 2003.
In view of the above and to actually ensure lasting peace, justice and reconciliation in Liberia, we are calling on the government of the Republic of Liberia, upon the receipt of the Final Report of the TRC by the National Legislature and the Head of State to proceed to forthwith start to implement the Final Report of the TRC as provided for in section 48 of the May 12, 2005 Act that created the TRC. Further, and because all the Commissioners of the TRC and their staff are officials of the government of Liberia, we are encouraging the government of Liberia to proceed to immediately restore their works and activities to the National budget of Liberia and to further provide them security effective immediately as it is being done by the government of Liberia for all other employees and citizens of Liberia. We also support the findings that there needs to be further investigation to establish who else committed war crimes and supported the war and destruction in Liberia. Acting accordingly and swiftly to enforce all the recommendations and findings of the TRC is certainly in the best interest of lasting peace, justice, reconciliation, the rule of law and human rights compliance in Africa.
“The African Union has declared 2016 as African Year of Human Rights with particular focus on the rights of women in Africa. This auspicious year is seen as a veritable watershed in the continental human rights trajectory: it marks, among others, the 35th Anniversary of the adoption of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Charter) in 1981; the 30th Anniversary of the entry into force of the African Charter in 1986; the 10th Anniversary of the operationalization of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Court); and the 15th Anniversary of the operationalization of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC)”; African Union (AU) 2016.


Consistent with the clear and enforceable posture and approach of the African Union (AU) as cited above, it remains our sense that implementing the Final Report of the TRC, will certainly enhance the justice, peace and human rights compliance in Africa and for Africa. Thus, we herewith recommend and encourage all friendly nations and governments to whenever possible, indict, arrest, prosecute an sentence the following people for committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and economic crime in Liberia:


Most Notorious Warlords

• Charles G. Taylor, former Leader, NPFL
• Prince Y. Johnson, former Leader of the INPFL
• Alhaji G. Kromah, former Leader of ULIMO-K
• George S. Boley, former Leader of LPC
• Sekou D. Konneh, former Leaders of LURD
• Thomas Yaya Nimley, former Leader of MODEL

We are equally encouraging all friendly nations and governments to when possible, indict, arrest and prosecute all those that associated themselves with the warring factions in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Liberia as documented by the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation (TRC).

March 24, 2017
In Re: Turn Them In
Her Excellency
Mrs. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf
President of the Republic of Liberia &
Chairman of the Authority of Heads of State and Government of the
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)
C/o Ministry of State for Presidential Affairs
Executive Mansion
P.O. Box 9001
Capitol Hill, Monrovia
Republic of Liberia
Dear President Sirleaf,
On behalf of the Africa Center for Law and Human Rights (ACLHR), we offer greetings to you and the hardworking people of Liberia and Member States of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Through this letter, the ACLHR endeavors to formally request of your government the application of justice without pause to those individuals accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Liberia. We are respectfully requesting that the Liberian Government summons and embrace the courage to list, submit and surrender for indictment and prosecution certain citizens of Liberia believed to have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and economic crimes in Liberia and against the people of Liberia from 24 December1989 to 23 August 2003.
Madam President and Chairman of the Heads of State and Government of ECOWAS, Africa Center for Law and Human Rights (ACLHR) is imploring your Government to request the international community to work with the Government and people of Liberia to support the establishment of an UN-backed War Crimes Court on Liberia to indict, arrest, and subsequently submit for prosecution Liberia’s most notorious warlords and their principal deputies. The ACLHR does affirm that the following Liberians and their deputies did consciously and purposely facilitate and commit war crimes and crimes against humanity in Liberia from 24 December 1989 to 23 August 2003, as documented and published by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia (TRC) on 29 June 2009. ACLHR endeavors for all indictments to correspond with each individual’s alleged participation in committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and Economic Crimes in Liberia. Specifically, ACLHR is referring to the following Liberian citizens:
1) General Prince Y. Johnson, former Leader of the INPFL 
2) Prof. Alhaji G.V. Kromah, former Leader of ULIMO-K
3) Mr. Sekou D. Konneh, former Leader of LURD
4) Dr. George S. Boley (PhD), former Leader of LPC
5) Mr. Thomas Yaya Nimley, former Leader of MODEL
6) Mr. Charles G. Taylor, former Leader of the NPFL
Your Excellency, this lawful request and submission from the Africa Center for Law and Human Rights is chiefly reinforced and sustained by key provisions in both Liberia’s domestic and international laws:
1) African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
2) Practice, Protocols and Directives of ECOWAS
3) Protocol on the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
4) Protocol on the Creation of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights 
5) Protocol on the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
6) Universal Declaration on Human Rights
7) International Human Rights Law
8) International Humanitarian Law
9) The Rome Statute
10) Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women
11) African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child
12 Pretoria Declaration on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
13) Penal Law – Title 26 – Liberian Code of Laws Revised, and
14) Constitution of the Republic of Liberia
For knowingly committing murder, torture, the breach of peace, and crimes against humanity in Liberia (an infringement absolutely inimical to the rule of law and human rights compliance in Liberia and Africa), Africa Center for Law and Human Rights believes that your Government’s indebtedness to Liberia and the people of Africa – particularly the Authority and Member States of ECOWAS – is to list, submit, and surrender the people named in this letter to an UN-backed and established War Crimes Court on Liberia directly, prior to your parting the office of presidency in Liberia. The ACLHR asserts that failure to do so on the part of your Government would elicit a high cost in terms of failing to protect the value of life and humanity.
We encourage you and your Government to align with the UN in establishing a War Crimes Court to avail the Liberian past of an unjust debt that has gone unpaid for nearly two decades. The ACLHR advises that your Government enforces and overseas that those persons we have listed as Liberia’s most notorious warlords and their principal deputies be submitted and surrendered to face prosecution and justice for their violent deeds in the Republic of Liberia and ultimately against the people of Liberia.
To not uphold Liberia’s domestic and international laws’ responsibility, to turn a blind eye to injustice on your home soil, would be to walk away from the privilege and opportunity of protecting human and peoples’ rights compliance in Africa.
Thanks for your time and usual consideration.
Respectfully Yours,
________________________________________________________________________
Frederick A.B. Jayweh, Esq., B.A., LL.B., LL.M
Counsellor-At-Law & Executive Director, Africa Center for Law and Human Rights (ACLHR)

First and foremost, Counselor Sayma Syrenius Cephus, is a member of the executive committee of Congress for Democratic Change (CDC), and so any legal paper or analysis written and published by him for all intents and purposes, should and must be carefully reviewed and critically considered by the people of Liberia and all those that have any political, social and economic interest (s) in the peace, security and stability of Liberia and the entire ECOWAS Region. This is so because factually and contextually, such constitutional papers are legally suspect and must be ardently scrutinized for want of proper legal construction, interpretation and equitable application of the law. In short, Cllr. Cephus’s paper and constitutional analysis on what the Constitution of Liberia directs and commands, particularly, what issues Articles 85, 86, 50, 51 and 64 of the Constitution of Liberia, solicit, speak to and address when it comes to when may the President of Liberia declare a state of emergency in Liberia or not, is and remains totally suspect, opinionative and politically motivated and legally overburdened.
In Liberia, what laws permit President Sirleaf to continue to hold onto power and the presidency of Liberia beyond January 15, 2018, if the runoff election for the presidency of Liberia were not conducted prior to January 15, 2018? What factually and legally constitutes declaration of the state of emergency or the power of the president of Liberia to summon the authority to invoke and declare a state of emergency under the laws of Liberia as proposed by Cllr. Cephus, legally is and remains, for all intents and purposes, totally speculative, opinionative, and suspect when contrasted against Articles 85, 86, 50, 51, 64 and Article 87, letters (a) and (b) of the Constitution of Liberia. In Liberia, the elements that constitutionally and contextually constitute the need to declare a state of emergency are carefully evaluated and measured. To suspend certain provisions of the Constitution of Liberia and declare a state of emergency must never be experimental or treated prematurely. A premature and irresponsible declaration of state of emergency in Liberia could plunge Liberia into unwarranted conflict.
Taking the pain and courage to thoroughly read through the article, “why Ellen’s presidency may likely continue beyond January 15, 2018 written and published by Cllr Sayma Syrenius Cephus, we astonishingly and disappointingly discovered that Cllr. Cephus, the executive member of CDC, in passing, cleverly chose to exclude stating the provisions of Chapter 9, Articles 85 and 86 of the Constitution of Liberia to properly inform his reading public and the world to make their own judgment as to whether the president of Liberia has the power to declare a state of emergency, when and why. But to the contrary, Cllr. Cephus being solely opinionative and speculative, word-for-word, exclusively cited and published Articles 50, 51, and 64 of the Constitution of Liberia to purport and sustain why he envisions, thinks, believes and concludes that Articles 50, 51, and 64 of the Constitution of Liberia, support and sustain the authority of the president of Liberia to declare a state of emergency with the power to suspend freedoms and rights in Liberia. In other words, do Articles 85, 86, 50, 51, and 64 of the Constitution of Liberia, give Mrs. Sirleaf the right to continue to hold onto power and the presidency of Liberia beyond January 15, 2018? We submit and hold that the 1986 Constitution doesn’t lend such authority and legally unsupervised power to President Sirleaf.
In the minds of the framers of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia, what are the elements that mainly and by law and fact constitute a threat to the peace, security and stability of Liberia, and what are evidence of the factual and legal elements of such threat to Liberia’s peace and security to enable Mrs. Sirleaf to forthwith declare a state of emergency in Liberia to continue to hold onto power and the presidency of Liberia beyond Monday, January 15, 2018? We, submit none.
Chapter 9: Article 85 of the Constitution of Liberia
The President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, may order any portion of the Armed Forces into a state of combat readiness in defense of the Republic, before or after the declaration of a state of emergency, as may be warranted by the situation. All military power or authority shall at all times, however, be held in subordination to the civil authority and the Constitution. Article 85, doesn’t lend such reckless and irresponsible power to Mrs. Sirleaf.
Chapter 9: Article 86 of the Constitution of Liberia
a) The President may, in consultation with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, proclaim and declare the existence of a state of emergency in the Republic or any part thereof. Acting pursuant thereto, the President may suspend or affect certain rights, freedoms and guarantees contained in this Constitution and exercise such other emergency powers as may be necessary and appropriate to take care of the emergency, subject, however, to the limitations contained in this Chapter.
b) A state of emergency may be declared only where there is a threat or outbreak of war or where there is civil unrest affecting the existence, security or well-being of the Republic amounting to a clear and present danger. Litigating before the courts threatens not Liberia’s peace, security and stability.
Does the complaint of fraud and irregularity filed by the Liberty Party (LP) and intervened by the Unity Party (UP), constitute a declaration of war or civil unrest affecting the existence, security or well-being of the Republic of Liberia to amount to clear and present danger to Liberia and its people? What laws, empower President Sirleaf to invoke and declare a state of emergency in Liberia and hold onto power and continue her presidency beyond Monday, January 15, 2018? The answer to this question is a clear, unequivocal and emphatic none. In Liberia, when a litigant is dissatisfied and aggrieved by the action of an administrative agency or a court, the proper and legitimate thing to do is to proceed and file a complaint. Litigating before the courts of Liberia or any of her administrative agencies, doesn’t constitute war or amount to a civil unrest affecting the existence, security and well-being of the Liberia and its people.
Under the Constitution of Liberia, a state of emergency may only be declared, where there is a threat or outbreak of war or where there is civil unrest affecting the existence, security or well-being of the Republic and amounting to clear and present danger to Liberia and its people. So, for any Liberian or legal mind to think, believe and conclude that Mrs. Sirleaf may hold onto power and continue her presidency beyond the constitutional limitation imposed which is leave power, Monday, January 15, 2018, because Liberty Party (LP) and Unity Party (UP) have yet their irregularity and fraud complaint pending before the National Elections Commission and/or the Supreme Court of Liberia and so Articles 85 and 86 of the Constitution of Liberia maybe invoked and relied on to declare a state of emergency in Liberia, simply amounts to a grave violation of the laws of Liberia and perhaps constitutes a crime of treason against the Republic and its people. Litigating before the courts of Liberia is an obvious normal process in Liberia and invokes not the declaration of the state of emergency.
Restrictions to Emergency Powers
Chapter 9: Article 87 of the Constitution of Liberia
a) Emergency powers do not include the power to suspend or abrogate the Constitution, dissolve the Legislature, or suspend or dismiss the Judiciary; and no constitutional amendments shall be promulgated during a state of emergency. Where the Legislature is not in session, it must be convened immediately in special session and remain in session during the entire period of the state of emergency. Nothing in this Article, gives Mrs. Sirleaf any power to declare a state of emergency, if the runoff election in Liberia is not held prior to January 15, 2018.
b) The writ of habeas corpus shall remain available and exercisable at all times and shall not be suspended on account of any state of emergency. It shall be enjoyed in the most free, easy, inexpensive, expeditious and ample manner. Any person who suffers from a violation of his right may challenge such violation in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Precisely under Article 85 of the Constitution of Liberia, the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Liberia, where there is war or threat of war, may order any portion of the Armed Forces of Liberia (AFL), into a state of combat readiness in defense of Liberia and its people, before or after a state of emergency is declared to protect Liberia. As a matter of law and tradition, Mrs. Sirleaf, may only declare a state of emergency, hold onto power and continue to be the President of Liberia beyond Monday, January 15, 2018, if there are facts and laws to warrant and support such unconstitutional arrest and takeover of power. The Republic of Liberia has no such laws and lends no such reckless and irresponsible power.
Even where Mrs. Sirleaf envisions, thinks and believes that she has the power to declare a state of emergency in Liberia and may want to continue her presidency beyond Monday, January 15, 2018 and may wish to preside over the runoff election of Liberia, Article 86 of the Liberian Constitution, demands that she must consult with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate of Liberia to declare a state of emergency in Liberia. So the power of Mrs. Sirleaf to hang onto power and continue her presidency in Liberia beyond Monday, January 15, 2018 by declaring a state of emergency doesn’t exist and it amounts to the commission of the Crime of Treason, to pretend to invoke and apply such power.
Articles 50, 51 and 64 of the Constitution mainly relied on by Cllr. Cephus to argue that Mrs. Sirleaf may hold onto power and continue her presidency in Liberia beyond January 15, 2018, particularly Articles 50 and 51, are simply descriptive and speak only to the role of the President of Liberia and grant no authority to Mrs. Sirleaf to declare a state of emergency in Liberia to continue to hold onto power and the presidency of Liberia beyond the 3rd Monday in January, 2018. During the civil war in Liberia, President Doe could declare a state of emergency on the 24th day of December, 1989; and Mrs. Sirleaf, could only declare a state of emergency during the outbreak of EBOLA in Liberia. But because litigating before the courts of Liberia and any of its administrative agencies, represents the normal process of judicial review as provided for by the Constitution and Statutory Laws of Liberia, Mrs. Sirleaf, has no authority to declare a state of emergency in Liberia. In short, normal litigation, doesn’t affect the security and existence of Liberia. So, any form of declaration of state of emergency, is repugnant and violates the Constitution and laws of Liberia. Articles 85, 86, 64, 50 and 51 of the Liberian Constitution invoked and applied by Cllr. Cephus to lend Mrs. Sirleaf the power to declare a state of emergency to continue to hold onto power and the presidency of Liberia beyond January 15, 2015, is wholly and solely unlawful and unconstitutional because the framers of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia, never ever contemplated or thought of such irresponsible act.
Chapter 6: Article 50 of the Constitution of Liberia
The Executive Power of the Republic shall be vested in the President who shall be Head of State, Head of Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Liberia. The president shall be elected by universal adult suffrage of registered voters in the Republic and shall hold office for a term of six years commencing at noon on the third working Monday in January of the year immediately following the elections. No person shall serve as President for more than two terms.
Not only does Article 50 of the Liberian Constitution give no power to Mrs. Sirleaf to declare a state of emergency in Liberia because the Liberty Party (LP) and Unity Party (UP) are litigating their fraud and irregularity complaint before the National Elections Commission of Liberia (NEC) and/or could be prosecuting their complaint on appeal before the Supreme Court of Liberia, Article 50, clearly inhibits Mrs. Sirleaf from holding onto the Presidency of Liberia, beyond two terms. Mrs. Sirleaf remaining in power beyond January 15, 2018, violates Article 50.
Chapter 6: Article 51 of the Constitution of Liberia
There shall be a Vice–President who shall assist the President in the discharge of his functions. The Vice–President shall be elected on the same political ticket and shall serve the same term as the President. The Vice–President shall be President of the Senate and preside over its deliberations without the right to vote, except in the case of a tie vote. He shall attend meetings of the cabinet and other governmental meetings and shall perform such functions as the President shall delegate or deem appropriate; provided that no powers specifically vested in the President by the provisions of this Constitution shall be delegated to the Vice–President.
Regrettably, Article 51 of the Constitution of Liberia gives no special power to Mrs. Sirleaf to declare a state of emergency in Liberia because the Liberty (LP) and Unity Parties are prosecuting their fraud and irregularity complaint before the courts of Liberia. Litigating a case in Liberia is certainly an obvious and a normal act of judicial review in the Republic of Liberia and as such, poses no threat to the existence, peace and stability of Liberia.
Between December 24, 1989 to August 22, 2003, Liberia’s bloody and unconstitutional war killed nearly 300, 000 Liberians and foreign nationals in Liberia and so, Liberians deserve peace, security, stability and not a return to conflict. Liberia and Liberians deserve better. Mrs. Sirleaf’s Presidency, certainly ends, Monday, January 15, 2017, at 12Noon. Anything else is unlawful.

AFRICA CENTER FOR LAW WRITES TO Remind President Trump About Liberia’s Plight H.E. Donald J. Trump President of United States of America 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500 Your Excellency: On behalf of the Africa Center for Law and Human Rights (Africa Center for Law), we have the honour to present you compliments, and avail of this opportunity to express to you, the government and people of the United States congratulations on a very successful first year anniversary as President of the United States. Through this letter Africa Center for Law, endeavors to formally request of you and the government of the United States the application of justice without pause to all officials and former officials of the Government of Liberia. We also write to entreat you and the Government of the United States to invoke and apply the 21 December, 2017, Executive Order of the United States in particular to former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the Sirleaf’s family, and key officials of President Sirleaf and her Government. Africa Center for Law is also of the strong belief and conviction that President Sirleaf, her family and key officials of her government, are guilty of the crimes of money laundering, capital flights, corruption and the violation of the United States Foreign Corporate Corrupt Practices Act (FCCPA). And so by extension and from all indications, President Sirleaf, key family members, friends, and officials are guilty of corruption and threat to national and international peace and security.
Also, we have no doubt that the officials and former officials of the Government of Liberia are expressly and knowingly guilty of the violation of human rights. In this connection, we would like to avail of this opportunity to present to you and the Government of the United States the names of current and former officials of the Johnson Sirleaf led government, in particular, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the Sirleaf’s family members, key officials and former officials of the Government of Liberia to be listed and covered by the 21 December, 2017, Executive Order of the United States and in accordance with these orders, the officials and former officials be barred from the shores of the United States, their ill-gotten properties confiscated, seized and their collective and individual bank accounts and balances frozen, seized and return to Liberia and the people of Liberia.

Recently amongst Western and African leaders in political and legal circles, presidential immunity has become a critical issue for debate. The question is whether the official as well as unofficial actions of presidents (both elected and unelected) are constitutionally and always protected?
Arguments for Absolute Presidential ImmunityOn the one hand, many Western and African political leaders are arguing that for a nations’ president to have the power to successfully conduct the affairs of his or her country, he or she has to have absolute and presumptive immunity. In exercising the duties and responsibilities of his or her office, the president of a country needs to have unlimited and absolute immunity from all civil and criminal litigations. The successful conduct of the office of the presidency requires presidential privilege and absolute immunity. In keeping within the scope and limitation of his or her authority and office, a president needs not be under any apprehension relative to the motive that controls his or her official or unofficial conduct in administering the affairs of the State. That is, when acting as the president, the conduct of a president needs not and should never become a subject of judicial review. Any attempt to question the conduct of a president will cripple the proper and effective administration of the State. To have the judiciary to review and adjudicate the official or unofficial actions of a president is unlawful under the constitutional system of governance.  Hence, a president needs not and must never become restrained by any law or made accountable to any court to answer to any civil or criminal action for his or her official and unofficial actions. To act otherwise will amount to a flagrant violation of the constitution of a state or nation. Presumptive and absolute immunity is representative of good governance in any state.  Those in support of presidential immunity contend that constitutionally, the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of a government are independent and should remain independent of each other at all times. Therefore, the actions of current and former presidents cannot be questioned by any court. Spalding v. Vilas (1869), Clinton v. Jones, Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), and Article 61(a) of the Liberian Constitution, (1986), relative to Presidential and Immunity.
Arguments against Absolute Presidential ImmunityWhile many people believe in absolute presidential immunity, the issue has always been, and remains, contentious because there are also many who believe in a doctrine of limited presidential power and control in a nation. Historically, presidential privilege has conflicted with the doctrine of separate but equal distribution of powers amongst the legislative, judicial, executive and judicial branches of government. Those who believe in and support the doctrine of the separation of powers have argued that the powers of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of a government constitutionally are separated but must remain coordinated and distributed equally amongst the three branches of government. Anything short of this shall woefully amount to the abuse of power by a president.  Advocates of limited and restricted presidential power and restricted privilege further argue that while the Constitution distributes and diffuses powers amongst the legislative, executive and judicial branches of a nation’s government in order to better secure liberty and justice and equality, it also commands coordination and interdependence amongst the three separate but equal branches of government for the purpose of equal justice and better governance. The doctrine of separation of powers conflicts with the granting of absolute and unrestricted powers to a president.  Allowing a president to have absolute power, unrestricted privilege, and immunity could conflict with the provision of equal justice, the development of the rule of law, and human rights in any developed and developing society.  It could be a troubling and terrifying environment if unrestricted and unchecked powers were to be granted to a former or current president. Therefore, there must always be checks and balances on the powers of a president regardless of if he or she is a president of the Western World or in the troubled environment of Africa.  The president and all government officials must also be subjected to the same laws applied to the people and citizens of his homeland. This will always avoid national confusion and chaos.
Since granting unlimited and unchecked powers to a president cannot be accounted for and sustained under the doctrine of the separation of powers, there is no precedent for such occurrence.  Some argue that to compel a current or former president to appear before a court to account for his or her unofficial and unlawful actions might appear to leave a nation and its executive branch of government without a president.  However, it is the power and province of the courts to conduct judicial review or say what the law is.  Therefore, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of a government must always act as checks and balances on the powers of a former or current president. Anything short of this, is equal to asking a nation, Western or African, to place its president above the rule of law, equal justice, and the respect for human rights. Marbury v. Madison (1803), Baker v. Carr, Youngstown Sheet, Tube Co v. Sawyer, Article III, Sections, I and II, P15, and the 1986 Constitution of the Republic of Liberia, Articles 65 and 66.

Where Presidential Immunity Has Been ClaimedWhether or not a current or former president should be granted absolute and unlimited presidential powers can be reviewed under two different cases: US Congress v. George W.  Bush, the President of the United States of America, and Charles G. Bryant v. The Republic of Liberia. These two cases, though factually and significantly different, highlight the same question – whether a president should be granted unlimited presidential powers to administer the affairs of the State.
In Washington, D.C., and during the Gorge Walker Bush’s era, the United States Congress issued two separate subpoenas for some of President George W. Bush’s advisors to appear and testify under oath before Congress about their knowledge of how and why the services of eight United States attorneys were terminated. Additionally, a subpoena was issued stating that these advisors produce written documents about this issue. In law, these subpoenas are known as Subpoena “ad testificandum, and Subpoena discus tecum”; a subpoena that always orders a witness to appear and to testify relative to his certain knowledge about a particular matter pending before a court or an administrative body, and a subpoena that for the most part that orders a witness to produce certain written documents, books and papers that pertain to a particular case pending and held under his or control or in his or her custody. These subpoenas when issued, must be answered to.
With these two subpoenas, Congress was determined to establish whether the eight United States attorneys were fired for political reasons.  If so, Congress wanted to determine whether a crime was committed and if so, who committed it.  To date, the Bush administration openly refused and embraced the doctrine of presidential immunity and constitutional protection to shield itself from any judicial review or legislative adjudication. Under this doctrine, all matters discussed and resolved by the United States’ President and his advisors are considered to be constitutionally immune and protected under the Constitution of the United States of America. As such, discussions, conclusions, and holdings reached by the President and his advisors shall not and are never to be disclosed; not to the legislative or judicial branch of government or to the American public. The Bush’s administration claimed that all discussions, communications, and deliberations of the President of the United States of America, enjoy presumptive and absolute presidential immunity and that constitutionally, there is nothing more to be discussed, debated, and concluded.
The battle as to whether President George W. Bush’s advisors should have appeared and testified under oath before Congress about the propriety or impropriety of the firing of the eight United States Attorneys remained debated by both the Bush administration and the United States Congress.  Should a president enjoy absolute and unrestricted immunity?  And if so, may his or her official and unofficial actions be always constitutionally protected from judicial review?
Precisely this form and type of questioning, equally applies to Africa and the people of Africa.
The Bush Administration argued that the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys questioned by the United States Congress, and fired by offices of the Attorney General of the United States of America, is an action of the President of the United States.  As such, this action, regardless of whether or not it is acceptable, cannot be brought into questioning by the judicial or legislative branch of the government.  President George W. Bush and his actions were constitutionally protected. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of American, PP 11, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), and Chemerinsky: Constitutional Law, PP.240-245.
In Monrovia, Liberia, the arrest and desire to prosecute Mr. Charles G. Bryant and his associates for allegedly committing economic sabotage and property theft raises a similar issue. Mr. Charles G. Bryant was the selected interim Chairman of the Transitional Government of Liberia from 2003 to 2005. As stated in the Liberian government’s arresting orders and indictment, while serving as the chairman of the transitional government of Liberia, Mr. Charles G. Bryant, purportedly stole a little over US$1,000,000 from the coffers of the Republic of Liberia. For this alleged act, Mr. Charles G. Bryant was charged with committing economic sabotage. To this charge, Mr. Bryant claims presidential privilege and absolute immunity. According to him, since he was the President of Liberia at the time of the infraction, no court has the power to question him.
In his petition to prohibit the government of Liberia from prosecuting him, Mr. Charles G. Bryant confessed to taking the money; however, he contended that at the time, he had presidential privilege and constitutional immunity. As such, the Government didn’t have the authority to prosecute him.  Mr. Bryant argued then that all of his actions from 2003 to 2005 were protected under the Constitution of Liberia and so, he couldn’t be arrested, charged, or prosecuted because he acted under the scope and confine of the Office of the Presidency of Liberia.
There is a significant difference between Mr. George W. Bush of the United States of America and Mr. Charles G. Bryant of the Republic of Liberia.  Mr. George W. Bush was constitutionally elected President of the United States of America, while Mr. Charles G. Bryant was handpicked, outside of the Constitution and the Statutory Laws of the Republic of Liberia to serve as the transitional Chairman from 2003 to 2005. To-date, Mr. George W. Bush was the elected and President of the United States of America, and Mr. Charles G. Bryant was a criminal defendant indicted and before the Courts of Liberia charged then with the Crime of Economic Sabotage.
Were Mr. Bryant and all his actions from 2003 to 2005 while serving as transitional president of Liberia, immune and protected under the Constitution of Liberia? Whether they be actions of omission or of deliberation commission, are all actions of Presidents in the West or Africa, always constitutionally privileged and immune from administrative, legislative, and judicial review? 


What is Presidential Immunity?Whether serving in the affluent Western World or on the Continent of Africa, Presidents have always contended that the Office of the President is a special and unique office. They have argued that the Office of the President has immense and enormous powers and responsibilities.  These powers and responsibilities are so vast and important that the president must always direct his or her undivided time and attention to his or her duties and responsibilities for the sake of protecting the interest of the public. For this reason, both Western and African Presidents have always argued and claimed that the official and unofficial acts of a president cannot be questioned by the judicial or the legislative branch of government because the president always enjoys executive privilege with presidential immunity. What is presidential immunity? In Africa, this case is made strongest.
Presidential immunity, is the power and authority that a president has to declare that his or her discussions, deliberations, and communications are confidential and secret.  As such, presidential deliberations and communications are protected by the Constitution from the public. United States v. Nixon, (1974), Nixon v. Fitzgerald, Baker v. Carr, Clinton v. Jones and Article 61 (a) of the Liberian Constitution relative to Executive Privilege and Presidential immunity.
Historically, discussions, deliberations, and communications carried out by and under the auspices of the Office of the President are usually privileged and protected by the Constitution. These discussions and deliberations are immune if they are specifically conducted within the scope and limitation of the Office of the President. To be privileged and protected under the Constitution, a presidential communication and deliberation must be official, specific, and serve a compelling public and national interest.  Unofficial and vague communications, discussions and deliberations that serve the general, narrow or personal interest of a president is not protected.  Furthermore, for presidential immunity to apply, a current or former president must be acting within the scope of the Office of the Presidency and under the expressed or implied authorization of Congress.  When the president acts pursuant to the expressed or implied power delegated to him or her by the country’s legislature, the president’s acts are at their maximum protection under the Constitution. Youngtown Sheet & Tube CO. v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952), and Constitutional Law by Chemerinsky, PP 232-342.  Constitutionally, the executive power of the state is vested in a president, and he or she must take care that the laws of the country are always faithfully executed.

 “Historically, good governance has been one of Liberia’s mean problems. How can we build and sustain the practices of good governance, rule of law, transparency, accountability, tolerance, merit, equity and decentralization? We must address ourselves to the serious problems we have when it comes to governance. It is a mess”. Yarsuo Weh-Dorliae: Proposition 12 for Decentralized Governance in Liberia, Power Sharing for Peace and Progress, Xvi
Article 76No judicial official shall be summoned, arrested, detained, prosecuted or tried civilly or criminally by or at the instance of any person or authority on account of judicial opinions rendered or expressed, judicial statements made and judicial acts done in the course of a trial in open court or in chambers, except for treason, murder, bribery, or other felonies, misdemeanor or breach of the peace. Statements made and acts done by such officials in the course of a judicial proceeding shall be privileged and, subject to the above qualification, no such statement made or acts done shall be admissible into evidence against a judge at any trial or proceeding thereafter in Liberia.
Article 77In all matters of contempt of court, whether in the Supreme Court, the Intermediate Appellate Courts of Liberia, or in the subordinate courts, the penalty to be imposed shall be fixed by the Legislature and shall conform to the provision on fundamental rights laid down in this Constitution; except that such fine or imprisonment period shall  be less than and shall not exceed United States US$2,000 ( United States Two Thousand Dollars) or thirty (30) days of imprisonment or both, depending on the gravity and factual history of the act of contempt of court. In all such cases, the accused must be accorded his day in court and a full hearing by the aggrieved court attempting to hold him in contempt of court; reserving original jurisdiction in all said matters.
Article 78The Supreme Court shall from time-to-time make rules of court for the purpose of regulating the practice, procedure and manner by which cases shall be commenced and heard before it and all other subordinate courts. It shall prescribe such code of conduct for lawyers appearing before it, the intermediate courts and all other subordinate courts as may be necessary to facilitate the proper discharge of the court’s functions. Such rules and code, however, shall not contravene any statutory provisions or any provisions of this Constitution of the Republic of Liberia.
Article 79a) Treason against the Republic shall consist of:
(1) Levying war against the Republic;
(2) Aligning oneself with or aiding and abetting another nation or people with whom Liberia is at war or in a state of war;
(3) Acts of espionage for an enemy state;
(4) Attempting by overt act to overthrow the Government, rebellion against the Republic, insurrection and mutiny; and
(5) Abrogating or attempting to abrogate, subverting or attempting or conspiring to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or any other means which attempts to undermine this Constitution.
The Legislature shall have the power to declare the punishment for treason; provided, however, that such punishment shall not include a death sentence or the deprivation or forfeiture of the right of inheritance by the convicted person of any property although he may not be entitled to enjoyment thereof for as long as he continues to serve the term of imprisonment imposed after conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction. The right to enjoyment of any property inherited or otherwise conveyed to or acquired by such convicted person shall be automatically restored upon serving the term of imprisonment or other punishment, or upon an executive pardon by the President. No punishment shall preclude the inheritance and enjoyment, or cause the forfeiture by others entitled thereto, of any property which the convicted person at the time of any conviction or subsequent thereto may have possessed or been seized.
Article 80Intermediate Appellate Court
Except as otherwise provided, upon the coming into force of these amendments to this Constitution, there shall be established in the Republic of Liberia three Intermediate Appellate Courts to be known and referred to as the 1st Judicial Intermediate Appellate Court; 2nd Judicial Intermediate Appellate Court; and the 3rd Judicial Intermediate Appellate Court of Liberia. And, except as otherwise provided, the First, Second and Third Judicial Intermediate Appellate Courts shall each be seated in the Cities of Monrovia, Buchanan and Gbarnga; Counties of Montserrado, Grand Bassa and Bong, Republic of Liberia; and they shall at all times share equal financial revenue and concurrent judicial powers with the Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia; except for all other matters that are exclusively rooted in Constitution of the Republic. And, except as otherwise provided, each Immediate Appellate Courts shall be administered and presided over by three (3) intermediate appellate judges each to be appointed by the President of Liberia and the President of the County Governors Association by the advice and consent of the Senate and the County Legislative Assembly. Each Intermediate Appellate Court of Liberia shall open on the Second Monday in March and October of each year to conduct judicial business.
Article 81 Immigration and Nationality Courts
Except as otherwise provided, upon coming into force of these amendments to this Constitution, there shall be established in the Republic of Liberia three specialized immigration and nationality courts to hereafter be known and referred to as the Immigration and Nationality Courts of Liberia, to be seated in the Cities of Monrovia, Buchanan, and Gbangba; Counties of Montserrado, Grand Bassa and Bong, Republic of Liberia. The immigration and nationality courts of Liberia shall open on the second Monday of each quarter to conduct judicial business. These courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to hear all immigration and naturalization cases that shall arise in their respective jurisdictions consistent with the Alien and Nationality Law of the Republic. Appeals from the judgments of these specialized immigration courts shall lie before the intermediate appellate court sitting in their respective jurisdictions whose judgments shall be final; except where a writ of certiorari shall be prayed for and granted by the Supreme Court of the Republic.
Article 82National Labor Courts
Except as otherwise provided, upon coming into force of these amendments to this Constitution, there shall be established in the Republic of Liberia three specialized National Labor Courts to hereafter be known and referred to as the National Labor Courts of Liberia to be seated in the Cities of Monrovia, Buchanan and Gbangba; Counties of Montserrado, Grand Bassa and Bong, Republic of Liberia. The National Labor Courts of Liberia shall open on the third Monday of each quarter to conduct judicial business. These courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to hear all labor cases that shall arise in their respective jurisdictions consistent with the Labor Relations Laws of the Republic. Appeals from the judgments of these specialized courts shall lie before the intermediate appellate court sitting in their respective jurisdictions whose judgments shall be final; except where a writ of certiorari shall be prayed for and granted by the Supreme Court of the Republic rooted in the Constitution of the Republic of Liberia. There shall be a judge appointed to head each of the National Labor and Immigration and Nationality Courts of the Liberia.
Article 84National Judicial Commission
Except as otherwise provided, upon coming into force of these amendments to the Constitution of the Republic, there shall be established in Liberia a 5-man National Judicial Commission (NJC) with the power to vet, monitor, advise and recommend the appointment or impeachment of all justices of the Supreme, Intermediate Appellate and judges of the subordinate to the courts of Liberia and other high judicial offices of the Republic. The Commission shall work to strengthen the structure of the Rule of Law and Judiciary. Membership of the Commission shall consist of the former Chief Justice, President of the Liberian National Bar Association (LNBA), and retired Judges of the Intermediate and Justices of the Supreme Courts of Liberia. The Commission shall have the power to independently investigate corruption, abuse of power and judicial impropriety in the Republic and advise the impeachment, removal and prosecution of all judicial officers.
Article 85National Assets Recovery Commission
Except as otherwise provided, upon the coming into force of these amendments to the Constitution, there shall be established in the Republic a 5-man National Assets Recovery Commission (NARC) with the power to suspend and dispense with the Statute of Limitations to investigate, prosecute and recover all assets of the Republic abused and converted by officials of the Government of Liberia since 1970 and beyond 2018. The Commission shall establish a 3-man specialized tribunal and prosecutorial arms to recover assets owned by the Republic, but acquired by fraud and deception. Appeals from the tribunal of the Commission shall lie before the Intermediate Courts sitting in their respective jurisdictions whose judgment shall be final, except appealed to the Supreme Court by leave of the Supreme Court of the Republic. The Commissioners shall be appointed for 5years. All appeals from this Commission shall lie before the Intermediate Courts.
Article 86National Economic Crimes Commission
Except as otherwise provided, upon coming into being of these amendments to the Constitution, there shall be established in Liberia and a 5-man National Economic Crimes Commission (NECC) with the power to inspect, inquire, investigate and prosecute all economic and financial crimes committed in the Republic of Liberia. The members of the Commission shall be appointed and commissioned for 5years.The Commission shall have a 3-man tribunal to hear and determine all economic and financial offenses. With the establishment of the Economic Crimes Commission, the Anti-Corruption is hereby dissolved and all matter pertaining to financial and economic crimes to including corruption, money laundering, and capital flight shall be vested in this Commission All appeals from this Commission shall lie before the Intermediate Courts.
Article 87National Elections Court of Liberia
Except as otherwise provided, upon coming into being of these amendments to the Constitution, there shall be established in Liberia a 3-man National Elections Court of Liberia with the power to inspect, inquire, investigate and hear all national elections matters in the Republic. Appeals from this Court shall lie before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia. Judges appointed to preside over this Court shall be for life, except that they may be retired at age 70 years. And except as otherwise provided, the National Elections Court of Liberia shall be seated in the City Trumansburg, Bomi County, Republic of Liberia and be responsible to hear all election matters.

“Historically, good governance has been one of Liberia’s mean problems. How can we build and sustain the practices of good governance, rule of law, transparency, accountability, tolerance, merit, equity and decentralization? We must address ourselves to the serious problems we have when it comes to governance. It is a mess”. Yarsuo Weh-Dorliae: Proposition 12 for Decentralized Governance in Liberia, Power Sharing for Peace and Progress, Xvi.
All power is inherent in the people. All free governments are instituted by their authority and for their benefit and they shall have the right to alter and reform the same when their safety and happiness so require. In order to ensure a democratic government which responds to the wishes and cause of the governed, the people shall have the right at such period and in such manner as provided for under this Constitution, to cause their public servants to leave office and to fill vacancies by regular elections and appointments. Liberian Constitution Chapter I: Structure of the State, Article I: Power of the People, 1986. Particularly, laws are made to enhance the lives of the people and protect good and advancement of every country and society.
Since 1847 and in spite of the specific command and authority of Liberia’s Constitution that vests the power and control of the Republic squarely in the hands of the people of Liberia, unfortunately, the power and control of Liberia has always intentionally being removed from the hands of the people and reposed into the hands of an over-priced and over-valued supper-powerful presidency; politically and legally, a presidency that may appoint and terminate appointments at-will. Such unhealthy displacement and dislodgement of power and sovereignty from the hands of the people of Liberia and reposing power in the Presidency of Liberia has for all intents and purposes, always injured the foundation of the rule of law and severely weakened the responsiveness and function of the government and legal system of Liberia. Like the Legislative branch of Liberia’s Government, historically, the powerful and dominating hands of the Presidency of Liberia have always and intentionally targeted and dominated the daily functions and activities of the Judiciary of Liberia. To avoid this administratively unhealthy and damaging interference, Liberians need to come together restructure and reform their legal system and the structure of their government. In my sense, this will provide equality and equity before and under the laws in Liberia. Liberians desire a legally relevant Judiciary and not a controlled system.
To sustain equality before and under the law in Liberia, the structure of Liberia’s Judiciary must be reformed, made functional, responsive, independent and decentralized to provide for and ensure judicial power and financial revenue sharing for all of Liberia’s Courts, for a better Liberia. Outside of the City of Monrovia, the Civil and Criminal Justice Systems of Liberia or the Court Systems (Civil Law and Criminal Law practice) remain woefully dysfunctional and unresponsive to the needs of the people of Liberia. For the most part, many of Liberia’s Courts outside of the City of Monrovia are administratively and legally ineffective and in some cases, presided over or manned by administratively and legally incompetent and inexperienced attorneys or counselors; many of whom are poorly trained or are not graduates of accredited law schools and may not fully understanding the inner working of the law. Qualified and competent attorneys and counselors appearing before these interior courts or courts residing outside of the City of Monrovia, as some may refer to them, usually find many of these courts to be run as religious or family tribunals wherein the act of substantive and procedural due process of law are many times intentionally violated or subconsciously set aside due to poor training or lack of clear understanding of process of substantive and due process of law. Some of the courts outside of the City of Monrovia are left to the discernment of the resident or assigned circuit judges to be had or conducted in private homes or on private possessions. Such private homes are either the personal property of the presiding judge or wealthy litigants that may be a party before many of the courts outside the City of Monrovia. Unfortunately, these harmful and ineffectual factors many times negatively impact the development, growth and transparent application of the rule of law in many of Liberia’s local counties and courts. Since 1847 to this point, the structure of Liberia’s Judiciary has remained weak and unresponsive to the needs of all the people of Liberia due to the fact that Liberia’s Judiciary has entirely sat in the City of Monrovia and has primarily been unconcerned with the judicial life and health of courts outside of Monrovia; thus judicial reform in Liberia remains a necessity and a must, for all intents and purposes, and an obligation placed on the shoulders of all Liberians. Liberia’s judiciary must be reformed and adequately supported for a better Liberia prior to or after 2018 and possibly years beyond. Indeed, all power is inherent in the people; and so, sovereignty must be returned and reposed in the people of Liberia and not agonizingly left into the hands and to the election of a super-powerful and overvalued presidency of the Republic.


CHAPTER VII: Proposed AmendmentsThe Judiciary of the Republic
Article 68The Judicial Power of the Republic shall be vested in a Supreme Court, three Intermediate Appellate Courts, and such other subordinate courts as the Legislature may from time to time establish. The Supreme Court and Intermediate Appellate Courts shall apply both statutory and customary laws in accordance with the standards enacted by the Legislature. Judgments of the Intermediate Appellate Courts shall be final; except for and as otherwise provided and where by leave of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia, a writ of certiorari is prayed for and issued by the Supreme Court of the Republic to hear and determine such matters rooted in the Constitution in which case, the judgment of the Supreme Court shall be final. Nothing in this Article shall prohibit administrative consideration of justifiable matters prior to being reviewed by a court of competent jurisdiction. Except, as otherwise provided, the Immediate Courts of Liberia and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia shall equally share financial revenue and concurrent judicial powers as provided for and contained in the Constitution, except in Constitutional matters.
Article 69The Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia shall be final arbiter of all constitutional issues and shall exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases involving constitutional matters, whether emanating from courts of record, courts not of record, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or any other authority, both as to law and fact; except cases involving ambassadors, ministers, or cases in which a county is a party. In all such cases, the Intermediate Appellate Courts of Liberia shall exercise final and original jurisdiction. The Legislature shall make no law nor create any exceptions that would deprive the Supreme Court and Intermediate Appellate Court of Liberia of any of the powers granted under these proposed amendments to the Constitution.
 Article 70The Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia shall comprise of one Chief Justice and four Associate Justices, three of whom shall be deemed competent to transact the business of the Court. If a quorum is not obtained to enable the Court to hear a case, a judge of the Intermediate Appellate Court in the order of seniority, shall sit as an ad hoc justice of the Supreme Court. And except as otherwise provided, the Intermediate Appellate Courts of the Liberia shall each comprise of one Chief Intermediate Appellate Judge and two Intermediate Appellate Judges; two of whom shall be deemed competent to transact the business of the Court. If a quorum is not obtained to enable an Intermediate Appellate Court to hear a case, a judge of the Circuit Court in order of seniority, shall sit as an ad hoc Intermediate Appellate Judge for the hearing of such particular cases.
Article 71The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and all Judges of the Intermediate Appellate Courts of Liberia shall, with the consent of the Senate and House of County Legislative Assembly, be appointed and commissioned by the President of Liberia and President of the County Governors Association; provided that any person so appointed shall be by the advised and recommended by National Judicial Commission of the Republic (NJCR;) and these shall be a:

1. a) Natural born citizen of Liberia and of good moral character; and,
2. b) Counselor of the Supreme and Intermediate Appellate Courts’ Bars who has practiced law in Liberia for at least 10 years before the Supreme and Intermediate Appellate Courts of the Republic of Liberia prior to his/her appointment and ascendency to the Supreme or Intermediate Court.
3. c) a graduate of the Louise Arthur Grimes School of Law, University of Liberia or any other accredited and recognized College of Law or University.

Article 72The judges of subordinate courts of record shall, with the consent of the Senate and County Legislative Assembly, be appointed and commissioned by the President of Liberia and President of the County Governors Association; provided that any person so appointed shall be a:

1. a) Natural born or naturalized citizen of Liberia and of good moral character; and
2. b) an attorney-at-law who has practiced law for at least 7years, or a counselor of the Supreme Court of the Republic and the Intermediate Courts’ Bars of the Republic of Liberia.
3. c) Graduate of the Louise Arthur Grimes School of Law or any other accredited law school.

Article 73The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, all Judges of the Intermediate Appellate Courts of Liberia and all judges of subordinate courts shall, before assuming the functions of their offices, subscribe to a solemn oath or affirmation to discharge faithfully and impartially the duties and functions of their offices and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and Laws of the Republic. The oath or affirmation shall be administered by the president of Liberia and President of the County Governors Association or their designee.
Article 74The Chief Justice and Associates Justices of the Supreme Court and all Judges of the Intermediate Appellate Courts and the judges of subordinate courts of record shall hold office for life and/or be retired at age 70years. They shall be removed upon impeachment and conviction by the Legislature based on proved misconduct, gross breach of duty, bribery, inability to perform the functions of their office, or conviction in a court of law for treason, bribery, murder, or other infamous crimes.
Article 75The Justices of the Supreme Court, Judges of the Intermediate Appellate Courts of Liberia and all other subordinate courts judges, shall receive such salaries, allowances and benefits as shall be established by law, tradition and best practices. Such salaries shall be subject to taxes as defined by law, provided that they shall not otherwise be diminished. Allowances and benefits paid to Justices of the Supreme Court, Judges of the Intermediate Appellate Courts of Liberia and judges of subordinate courts may by law be increased but may not be diminished except under a national program enacted by the Legislature; nor shall such allowances and benefits be subject to taxation. Such benefits shall include but not be limited to life insurance and retirement benefits which shall be 75% of the regular salaries as Justices and Judges of the Republic provided they are not gainfully employed by the Republic and government of Liberia.

1. b) The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, Judges of the Intermediate Appellate Courts of Liberia and judges of subordinate courts of record shall serve for life or be retired at the age of 70 years; provided, however, that a justice or judge who has attained that age. may continue in office for as long as may be necessary to enable him to render judgment or perform any other judicial duty in regard to proceedings entertained by him before the attained that age.

After sitting and deliberating for nearly three (3) years, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia released its classic and Final Report according to and consistent with its mandate and statutory powers as provided for and contained under Articles IV, Section 4 letters {a) to {f} and Article VII, Section 26 letters {a} to {h} of the Act creating the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia of May 12, 2005. Acting under its mandate and power, the TRC met and reached the foregoing determinations and findings nearly a decade ago:
1}  THAT the National Legislature of Liberia enact into law and forthwith proceed and establish in Liberia, a specialized UN-backed criminal court to prosecute all human rights and international humanitarian laws violators from 1979 to 2003;
2} THAT all warring faction leaders of Liberia be forthwith indicted and prosecuted for allegedly and intentionally committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Liberia;
3} THAT all most notorious perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity be also indicted and prosecuted for violating international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law, the laws of war and the domestic laws of the Republic of Liberia;
4} THAT all individuals and persons charged with committing economic and other financial crimes from 1979 to 2003 in Liberia, be also indicted and prosecuted; and,
5} THAT all political leaders and financiers of warring factions in Liberia be banned from holding public office in Liberia for 30 years.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the TRC, reached the foregoing determinations and findings by principally relying on the following sources and principles of law:
Article IV
Mandate of the Commission
Section 4: The objective or purpose of the Commission shall be to promote national peace, security, unity and reconciliation by:

1. a) Investigating gross human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law as well as abuses that occurred, including massacres, sexual violations, murder, extra-judicial killings and economic and other financially motivated crimes from 1979 to 2003;
2. b)  Providing a forum that will address all issues of impunity, as well as an opportunity for both victims and perpetrators of human rights violations to share their experiences in order to create a clear picture and structure of the past so as to facilitate genuine healing and reconciliation;
3. c)  Investigate the antecedents of the crises which give rise to and impacted the violent conflict in Liberia lasting from December 24, 1989 to 2003;
4. d)  Conduct a critical review of Liberia’s historical past in order to address falsehoods and misconceptions about the nation’s past social-economic and socio-political development;
5. e)  Adopt specific mechanisms and procedures to address the experiences of women, children and vulnerable groups, paying particular attention to gender-based violations as well as child soldier issues and recommend measures that will bring about national reconciliation and healing; and,
6. f) Compile a report that will include comprehensive account of activities of the Commission and its findings. The Act Creating the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia, Article IV, Section 4 (a) to (f), PP. 4-5

Apart from the mandate of the TRC stated above, Section 26 (b) of the Act clearly empowered the TRC where possible to identify persons, authorities, institutions and organizations involved in human rights violation of human in Liberia.  And the TRC is to make recommendation to the Head of State to hold prosecution with reference to particular cases as the TRC may deem necessary and appropriate for the development and growth rule of law, justice, and national healing in Liberia.
Acting in accordance to and consistent with its statutory mandate and power, after collecting evidence, conduction investigations and hearings for nearly three (3) years, the TRC determined and recommended that all heads of warring factions, most notorious perpetrators, and all persons charged with committing economic and other crimes in Liberia be indicted and prosecuted by a specialized UN-backed criminal court to be statutorily established in Liberia. The TRC also recommended that all political leaders and financiers of warring factions in Liberia be sanctioned from holding public office for 30 years. The foregoing determinations and findings of the TRC have caused a great stirred and uncertainty amongst Liberians residing in foreign parts and Liberia to support or denounce the recommendations of the TRC. Today, there are those who think that the TRC had no legal power or authority to indict or recommend the prosecution and sanctioning of any Liberian from holding public office for 30 years in Liberia for financing and supporting warring factions and the war in Liberia; due to their due process of law. To the contrary, Liberians that support the final report of the TRC have for nearly 10years encouraged the government of Liberia to proceed and implement the report of the TRC as provided for by the May 2005 Act.
For all intents and purpose our organization knows and its members are witnesses that from 1989 to 2003, Liberia was engulfed and actively engaged in a bitter and bloody armed conflict. The outcome of this conflict destroyed the lives and fabric of about 300,000 citizens and much property. Primarily, the war was initiated and prosecuted by the National Patriotic Front of Liberia, (NPFL); the Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia, (INPFL); ULIMO & ULIMO-J; ULIMO & ULIMO-K; LPC; LDF, MODEL and LURD. For nearly 15 years, these warring factions were believed and known to have committed gross violations of international human rights law, serious violations of international humanitarian law and economic crimes and crimes against humanity in Liberia. For the purpose of this article, the following legal principles of domestic and international law are applied to measure and ensure strong and unwavering support for the Final Report of the TRC for the sake of justice, peace and human rights compliance in Africa.
Crimes against Humanity
An accused is guilty of committing crimes against humanity if he/she systematically directs attacks against any civilian population with the knowledge that the attack will cause:

1. Murder;
   ii.    Extermination;
   iii.   Enslavement;
   iv.   Deportation or forcible transfer of a population;
   v.    Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of
   fundamental rule of international law;
   vi.   Torture;
   vii.  Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, etc.;
   viii. Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial,
   national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3 or other
   grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law,
   international human rights law and the laws of war; and,
   ix.  Enforce disappearance of persons;

Gross Violations of Human Rights
1) Murder:
An accused is guilty of committing gross human rights violations such as
murder if he/she knowingly and purposely caused the death of another
human being or caused the death of another human being under
circumstances that manifest extreme indifference to the value of human life, and the perpetrator kills one of more people with the sustained process of due process of law.
 2)  Extermination:
 The perpetrator kills one of more people, including by the intentional infliction of condition of life, such as deprivation of access to food, medicine, calculated to being about the destruction of a population. The conduct constituted, or took place as part of a mass killing of members of a civilian population or certain group of people.
 3)  Torture:
The perpetrator intentionally inflicts severe physical and mental pain or suffering upon one or more people. Such person or persons were in the custody or under the control of the perpetrator. Such pain and suffering did arise from, and was not inherent in or incidental to a lawful sanction. In the context of international human rights law, it is understood that no specific purpose need to be proved for this crime, as distinct from torture to constitute a war crime.