Article 65:
“The Judicial Power of the Republic shall be vested in a Supreme Court and such subordinate courts as the legislature may from time to time establish. The courts shall apply both statutory and customary laws in accordance with the standards enacted by the Legislature….”.
This Article gives the Legislature the authority to create courts in Liberia. The Judiciary Law, which establishes courts under the Judiciary, was crafted and passed upon by the National Legislature. Chapter 7 of the Judiciary Law provides for the establishment of Magistrates’ Court; therefore, the magistrates’ courts are subordinate courts to the Supreme Court.
Article 70
“The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and all judges of subordinate courts shall, before assuming the functions of their office, subscribe to a solemn oath or affirmation to discharge faithfully and impartially the duties and functions of their office and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the Republic. The oath or affirmation shall be administered by the President or his designee.”
This Article provides that the Chief Justice, Associate Justices and judges of subordinate courts must subscribe to a solemn oath before oath before assuming the functions of their office. Like all other categories of Judges, Magistrates do take oath before assuming their offices. Hence, this Article recognizes Magistrates as Judges.
Article 71
“The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and the judges of subordinate courts of record shall hold office during good behavior. They may be removed upon impeachment and conviction by the Legislature based on proved misconduct, gross breach of duty, inability to perform the functions of their office, or conviction in a court of law for treason, bribery or other infamous crimes.”
This Article speaks to the category of Judges that may be impeached. Although Article 70 recognizes Magistrates as Judges, Article 71 basically focuses on Judges that could be impeached. Note that the phrase subordinate courts of records is mainly used to speak to Judges that fall in the category for impeachment. This has nothing to do with salaries of Judges, rather it establishes the means by which these categories of Judges may be removed from office.
Article 72
“a) The Justices of the Supreme Court and all other judges shall receive such salaries, allowances and benefits as shall be established by law. 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 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.
b) The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and judges of subordinate courts of record shall be retired at the age of seventy; 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 he attained that age.”
From the quoted Articles above, it is a glaring fact that the framers of the Constitution made it very clear when they were speaking to Justices and Judges of the Circuit and Specialized Courts by inserting the phrase “judges of subordinate courts of records”, and when the framers were speaking to Justices, Judges, and Magistrates they made use of the phrase “judges of subordinate courts”.
By this parity of reasoning, it can be logically deduced that Article 72 (a) captures Magistrates as part of those Judges being referred to. As a matter of fact, in Article 72 (a) the framers went to the extreme by not using the phrase “judges of subordinate courts”, but instead used the phrase “…and all other judges”, meaning every category of judges under the Judiciary, which includes Magistrates.
Moreover, the catch sentence in Article 72 (a) is “The Justices of the Supreme Court and all other judges shall receive such salaries, allowances and benefits as shall be established by law”. The key issue to be answered is “whether or not Magistrates’ salaries, allowances and benefits are established by law”. The resounding answer to this question is in the positive; and if so, then the subsequent sentences: “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 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”, apply to Magistrates.
In view of the above arguments raised, it is only legally prudent to conclude that Magistrates are captured under Article 72 (a) as judges whose salaries shall be subjected to taxes as defined by law, provided that they shall not otherwise be diminished. The Magistrates’ salaries, as well as the salaries of Justices and Judges were diminished, which was unconstitutional and that is why the IN RE Petition was filed by the NATJL. If Judges received the diminished amounts retroactively, Magistrates, as part of the petition filed, and as judges whose salaries were diminished, should benefit from the reinstatement of their pre-harmonized salaries, and retroactive payment of deducted amounts.
Discussion about this post