"You are hereby commanded to comply with the foregoing ruling immediately " says Chamber Justice Yarmie Quiqui Gbeisay warning
Justice Yarmie Quiqui Gbeisay of the Supreme Court has cautioned the Liberia Immigration Services (LIS) and the Civil Service Agency (CSA) to promptly adhere to the ruling issued on January 6.
In a one-page mandate dated January 13, Justice Gbeisay wrote "You are hereby commanded to comply with the foregoing ruling immediately."
The directive from Justice Gbeisay, who is the current Justice in Chambers, follows the failure of legal representatives for the LIS and CSA to pursue an appeal announced earlier this month, which would have prompted a review by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court regarding Justice Gbeisay's judgment.
In the five-page judgment delivered on Monday, January 6, Justice Gbeisay mandated the LIS and the Civil Service Agency (CSA) to refrain from all actions and activities geared to premature retirement of 245 employees.
"The respondents action is ultra vires to the intent and purposes of the retirement scheme under the CSA'S standing rule," Gbeisay said in his ruling that granted the petitioners petition for a Writ of prohibition.
In the ruling, Justice Gbeisay emphasized that the actions taken by the respondents in prematurely retiring the employees petitioners were inconsistent with the retirement scheme outlined in the CSA's standing regulations. The judgment referenced specific sections regarding retirement criteria and procedures for civil servants, highlighting the absence of due process in the handling of the 245 employees identified for retirement.
In his reliance Gbeisay quotes Chapter 3, section 5 title "Retirement" subsection 3.5.1.
He said, "unless ordered otherwise by the government, every employee shall be compulsory retired at the age of 65, or after a minimum of 25 years of service as specified under section 1 of the government employees pension act."
Gbeisay further quoted subsection 3.5.2, which says "agency heads shall submit at quarterly intervals to the Director General a list of all employees who are due for retirement. Agency heads shall ensure that such details are submitted to the Director General at least 3 months prior to the date of retirement of employees concerned. A list recording details of all retired Civil Servants throughout the civil service shall be maintained by the Director General."
According to the Chamber Justice, the petitioners become aware of their retirements, based on a public service announcement on the LIS bulletin, stating the 245 employees have been identified by the CSA, and that they should report to the Headquarter on Monday, July 22,2024 at 10am.
He noted that in the same publication the respondents listed a total of 245 employees earmarked for retirement based on CSA identification or recommendation, without specifically whether the employees listed have attained the age of 65 or have worked in their respective capacity for 25 years.
"The respondents only argued that they have relied on section 89.20 of the new executive law, establishing the National Social Security and Welfare Corporation. But without stating which provisions vested them with the power and authority to arbitrarily grant compulsory retirement to any employees.," Gbeisay wondered. Adding, "This court finds it difficult to agree with the respondents on such argument"
He went went on, that it is even shocking for the respondents, to have ignored the fact that section 11.2 of the LIS regulations and administrative instructions grants unto the Human Resource Department, the power and authority to prepare by July of each year a roster of all immigration officers, who are qualified for the compulsory retirement in the forthcoming year.
"There are no records to prove that the Human Resource Department ever prepared such a list," said Gbeisay.
He says the regulations providing the list of potential retirees earmarked for retirement must have come from the Human Resource Department, and not the CSA.
"Based on the record in the case file it is clear that no listing was ever prepared by the Human Resource Department," Gbeisay noted.
"The publication of the public service announcement being consequently counterproductive to the very statute the respondents relied upon to egregiously violative of the rights of the petitioners under the CSA'S standing rules, this court is left with no other alternative but to grant petitioners petition," Gbeisay said.
Therefore, Justice Gbeisay ruled by granting the alternative writ of prohibition requested by the petitioners.
Before Justice Gbeisay's decision, the respondents had argued that the action based on Section 89.20 "Retirement Pension"
According to them, the section expressly states "A person shall be entitled to retirement of; a. He/she has attained 60 years old, b. He/she has retired from employment and c, He/she has paid a monthly contribution and born the year 1980 or after."
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
They further argued that the Repeal PRC Decree No.14 and the subsequent enactment of Chapter 89 of the New Executive Law establishing the National Social Security and Welfare Corporation automatically rendered ineffectual and inconsistent any law and regulation regarding pension.
They also argued that it did not rely upon section 11.2 of the LIS's regulation and administrative instructions which grant unto the Human Resource Department the power and authority to prepare by July of each year a roster of all immigration officers who are qualified for the compulsory retirement in the forthcoming year but rather relied upon the act creating the National Social Security and Welfare Corporation.
The petitioners' legal team, led by Counselor Momolu G. Kandahar of the Gongloe and Associate Law Firm argue that the compulsory retirement notice published by the respondents on July 31, 2024, is contrary to section 11.3 of the LIS's regulation and administrative instructions.
"It is even in contravention of the law and the LIS regulations and administrative instructions, therefore, the same should be inhibited, prohibited and set aside because such conduct is meant to deprive petitioners employment opportunity without any legal jurisdiction."
