Most Liberian political liberals and peace-at-any-and-all-cost crusaders believe the way to the nation's postwar recovery is through a peace environment in which stakeholders avoid all contentions, pool their talents and opinions into a functional state-building machinery, and work together for results. But former Foreign Minister and Democratic Alliance Chairman (DA) Ad hoc, Lewis Brown, says while that sounds good, it is it cannot work for the good of the people in today's Liberia – because "stranger things are happening". The Analyst has been finding out the 'stranger things" from a speech Mr. Brown delivered at the 2010 commencement exercises of the Graduate School of Business of the University of Liberia.

Former Foreign Minister Lewis Brown says it is difficult to sing praises and kumbayahs to the Sirleaf Administration because stranger things that threaten peace and security and put the growth of democracy at risk are happening.

But he says he takes solace in what he believes is the fact that Liberians are "too smart to stubbornly repeat the wrongs of yesteryears".

Stranger things

Key amongst the 'stranger things' that were happening, he told the University of Liberia Business School graduates yesterday, were the promises betrayed by the Sirleaf Administration, the series of failed policies that depopulated the countryside, sending thousands of citizens squatting in and around Monrovia, and the recent Supreme Court "Stay Order" on the National Legislature.

These, mainly the failed policies, he claimed, have thrown the government into deep economic slump and threatened to return the country to its "discredited past".

He then wondered to what good was it for stakeholders to simply "sing praises and kumbayahs" for the sake of appearing to be in solidarity instead of asking hard questions, pointing out political and administrative gaffes and criminal manipulations of the system, and demanding answers and rectitude.

Singing kumbayahs versus asking hard questions

"How can we sing praises and kumbayahs when the answer to our economic difficulties is to tax our way out of the global financial crisis and pass the burdens of higher costs of living on an already distressed population, in the face of real threats to return the country to its discredited past?" the DA ad hoc chairman asked rhetorically.

He said the concept of loyal opposition was farfetched in today's Liberia because the Sirleaf Administration has turned to "the old rule book and manipulate for short-term gains at the real risk of long-term losses to the country" instead of conducting the business of state under democratic practices.

The DA chair chose to not to be specific on the matter of old rule book, manipulation, and democratic practices in governance, but he noted that if strange things had happened in the past, stranger things were happening now.

These stranger things, he noted, were happening even at the level of the Supreme Court of Liberia, appearing as though the tendency was towards misfeasance for political gains at the expense of the rule of law and due process.

In its most recent judicial action, he said as an instance, the Supreme Court of Liberia ordered the National Legislature to "…stay all further proceedings until otherwise ordered" on the basis of a prohibition filed by "The Concerned Setor Youth" through its board chairman, Mr. James K. Doe.

He made no further comment on the demands of the youth group's prohibition, nor did he say what the Supreme Court was seeking, and whether the National Legislature has heeded the high court's stay order. Observers have however noted that there has been no precedence of the Legislature heeding Supreme Court's stay order in legislative matters.

Supreme Court's Stay Order, More Questions

Meantime Mr. Brown said what was not only stranger but inimical to the rungs of Liberia's constitutional rule, good governance practices, rule of law, and the culture of democracy was that the high court's order raised more questions than it provided answers and solutions.

This, the controversial former foreign minister said, was besides the point that the order sought to take Liberia back to the days when politicians used the courts as blockading rods rather as deciders of legal questions and disputes.

Mr. Brown, also political strategist of the opposition National Patriotic Party (NPP), did not say how the high court's stay order related to the two-time-vetoed but yet-to-be-overridden "Threshold Bill".

But he told his audience that the high court's intervention at this time raised lead questions, questions which were both pivotal and fundamental to Liberia's reform efforts and to the expectation of the international community, which expects Liberians of this era to act differently.

"Are we running down the clock so that the next elections are held under special conditions not provided for by the Liberian Constitution? Is this a business with which our Courts ought to be engaged? Are we prepared to risk a critically important transitional election to selfish political manipulations? Is it in the interests of the country that we win at any cost including the high price of undermining the Liberian Constitution? Can we afford to return to the dark days when the Courts were used and manipulated – voluntarily and involuntarily – to influence the outcomes of political processes? Can we afford to go back to those days when even legal means and legal institutions were used to achieve illegal ends? Given all that we have seen; all that we have experienced; given all the pains; and, given all the sufferings, can we still say today that the ends justify the means?" he wondered.

He said these were enduring questions because it was bizarre that the nation's highest court agreed to undertake a cause in which it obviously lacks constitutional jurisdiction, in which it can at best grant "advisory opinion", and in which it risks possible contempt of the National Legislature in keeping with Article  44 of the Constitution of Liberia.

 Exclusive right, possible contempt of the Legislature

In the opinion of Mr. Brown, the Supreme Court's action was "not simply the highest form of judicial overreach, but also, to the extent that it obstructs the performance of a constitutional duty of the Legislature, is contemptuous".

"There is no proceeding short of rules of the legislature as provided for in Article 38, which can operate to limit debate or speech on the floor of the legislature. And there is no order, which can gag members of the legislature from taking up a subject which they so choose, let alone a subject for which they are constitutionally obligated to act upon," he said with regards to the high court's stay order.

He said it was only the National Legislature, under article 39 of the Constitution of Liberia, that can decide the population-per-constituency question and that therefore, he did not see how the Supreme Court was drawn into the picture.

"The framers have assigned this duty to the direct representatives of the people because at its core, the question of who gets what, when and how in democracies – the question of who wins and who loses in the political process – are best supervised and decided by the people through their direct representatives and not by the Courts. And of course, the Courts should not be in the business of refereeing political debates on the floor of the legislature," he said.

This, he argued, was to say nothing about the passage of the new threshold not being justiciable or court matter since there was no legal or constitutional way that the court could provide adequate resolution of legislative process.

"Court should not accept jurisdiction over questions that are merely hypothetical, theoretical or academic nor should courts exercise jurisdiction over matters on the basis of presumed fears and or apprehensions," he said.

He then noted that in the current case, the Supreme Court might only have to substitute its own judgment for the agenda of the people's representative, an agenda that is constitutionally prescribed for a coordinate and equal branch of the government.

He said the courts best serve their organic function of making justice accessible to the people if they were insulated from and guided against political manipulations than when they were allowed to meddle in political questions that have no clear-cut judicial solutions.

 No going back

"There was a time which we remember when the Courts were used to slow down and even halt processes with which administrations were duty-bound to perform but were uncomfortable with performing. In one such example, the courts were used to trap and halt the registrations of political party organizations which effectively stifled the consolidation of competitive multi-party democracy in the country," he said, noting that Liberians cannot go back to that time.

Given past experiences with court and politics, he said, it was not unreasonable to ask a question that is even more pivotal:

"Whose interests are served by staying the Legislature from proceeding to pass a new threshold for electoral constituencies at the real risk of obstructing the Legislature in the performance of its constitutional duty? [Whose interest is it serving] at a time when political parties, interest groups, the international community and the National Elections Commission are all calling for the immediate passage of a new threshold to uphold the demands of the Constitution for the conduct of the ensuing Presidential and General Elections?"

He recalled that the Legislature passed the Threshold Bill twice, and twice the President vetoed it without a single House override.

He then noted that even the notices political parties, interest groups, the National Elections Commission, and the international community served on leading branches of the Liberia government warning of the jeopardizing consequences of delay in passing the bill on the 2011 general and presidential elections, yielded no good result to date. But he contended that this offered no alibi to do things outside the law.

"We cannot imagine that we can simply by-pass constitutional requirements, even if they have been done before and even if they may provide us a little temporary reprieve," he said, implying that the high court's order was likely to produce results that provided "temporary reprieve".

He said it was tempting to take shortcuts, but that the nation could not afford to employ illegal means to gain legal ends.

"Nor can we employ legal means to derive illegal ends. To be so engaged at this time is to tragically roll back the clock when we should be moving forward. We cannot afford to go back," he warned.