-As Court reserves ruling on right of prohibition at EPA
By: G Bennie Bravo Johnson I
Chamber Justice, Yussif Kaba on Tuesday, March 26, 2024, reserved a ruling in the writ of prohibition filed against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by its predecessor, Prof. Wilson Tarpeh.
Chamber Justice Kaba’s decision has extended the halt of the EPA functions pending a final decision on the writ of prohibition filed by former executive director Professor Wilson K. Tarpeh.
On Tuesday, both teams argued and presented their case which makes it two times since the petitioner petition was filed with the Supreme Court and directed to the Chamber Justice for determination.
Prof. Tarpeh on March 7, 2024, filed his Writ of Prohibition with the Chambers Justice claiming that he was the tenured executive director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
He further noted that contrary to this, President Joseph Boakai replaced him with Co-Respondent Yarkpawolo as Acting Executive Director of the Agency.
” The Petitioner stated that his purported tenure accorded him a property right under Chapter III, Fundamental Rights of the Constitution, and that he cannot be denied such a right without due process being accorded him. Petitioner claims that if the President does not want him at the EPA, the government should compensate him for his purported remaining 43 (forty-three) month tenure” Prof. Tarpeh stated.
He narrated that under Section 16 of the EPA Act, his appointment by President George Weah afforded him a seven-year tenure.
Prof. Tarpeh also claimed that the President’s appointment of an Acting/interim Executive Director of the EPA was a fit action for a writ of prohibition because the action was contrary to the EPA Act and beyond the scope the law allows.
But, as stated in the co-respondent bride filed before the chamber Justice on March 25, 2024, during the trial Tuesday, the led lawyer representing Dr. Emmanuel Urey-Yarkpawolo and the EPA, Cllr. Lamii Kpargoi prayed the court to deny and dismiss the petitioner’s request, saying the foregoing factual narration presents the following issues.
” Whether or not in the absence of the recommendation of the EPA Policy Council, the President of the Republic of Liberia appointment of the Petitioner as Executive Director of the EPA constitutes a seven-year tenure? Also, Whether or not President Boakai has the authority under the EPA Act to appoint an Interim/Acting Executive Director of the Agency following his inauguration as President? Whether or not prohibition will lie given the facts and circumstances in the instant case” he argued.
He argued that Part III Section 16 of the EPA Act provides for the appointment, tenure, and removal of the Agency Executive Director as follows:
PART III ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGENCY Section 16 The Executive Director
1) There shall be an Executive Director who is a person with wide environmental knowledge and recognized comment on sustainable management of the environment, appointed by the President from a list of three names recommended by the Council, except that the President may appoint an interim Executive Director pending the formation of the Council
2) The Executive Director shall serve for 7 years and shall be eligible for reappointment, except that there shall be appointed an interim Executive Director;
Further, the Act provides the President the option of appointing an interim Executive Director pending the formation of the [Policy] Council”. On the issue of tenure, the Act makes clear the distinction between the Executive Director who is appointed by the President from the shortlist provided by the Policy Council, and the Interim Executive Director who is singlehandedly appointed by the President. Section 16 subsection 2) of the Act is clear that the Executive Director shall have a seven-year tenure and not the Interim Executive Director.
“WHEREFORE AND given THE FOREGOING, the hereinabove named co-respondent prays this honorable Court to deny the petitioner petition, order the lifting of the stay order placed on the co-respondent, quash the alternative writ, deny the issuance of the peremptory writ, and grant unto the co-respondent such further relief as this court may consider just and legal” concluded.
