Prosecutors Play Retirement Card to Twist Tweah, et al. Case Proceedings
- Michael T
- Jul 2
- 3 min read
In Liberia’s Supreme Court, justice is inherently a collective function, with the Chief Justice serving as the Presiding officer of the full bench. It is important to understand that the Chief Justice does not personally sit in Chambers but rather designates an Associate Justice to sit in Chambers on behalf of the Supreme Court. When a case is assigned to a Justice in Chambers, it is not the individual will of that Justice that prevails, but rather the collective voice of the Supreme Court, under the leadership of the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court Rules and Judiciary Law expressly provide that only one Justice sits in Chambers at a time, but the actions of that Justice are presumed to be those of the entire Court, led by the Chief Justice. Unless a decision is found lacking in legal merit and is reversed by the full bench, the authority exercised in Chambers is that of the Court as a whole.
Article 72(b) and Judicial Continuity
Article 72(b) of the Liberian Constitution provides an essential safeguard for judicial continuity:
“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.”
This provision allows a Justice who has reached the mandatory retirement age to remain in office to conclude cases that were formally taken up before reaching that age.
Precedent and Established Practice
Liberian judicial precedent and practice confirm this interpretation. Former Chief Justice Francis Korkpor and Associate Justice Philip Banks continued to conclude cases after reaching the constitutional retirement age, provided those cases were entertained before their birthdays. The assignment and reassignment of cases are collective functions performed under the Chief Justice’s administrative authority, reinforcing the principle that the Chief Justice’s actions are always on behalf of the Supreme Court.
Legal Context and Comparative Jurisprudence
The principle that judicial acts are those of the Court, not the individual, is well established in common law jurisdictions. For example, in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that the authority of the Court is vested in the institution, not in any particular Justice.
Similarly, the doctrine of judicial continuity is recognized in international jurisprudence, ensuring that cases are not left unresolved due to judicial transitions.
The Argument Against Recusal and Delay
The prosecution’s argument—that the Chief Justice cannot conclude a case “entertained” by the Supreme Court prior to her retirement—misconstrues both the collective nature of Supreme Court function and the constitutional guarantee of judicial continuity under Article 72(b). Such a position is not only unsupported by law and precedent, but is also discriminatory, singling out the Chief Justice for a procedural disability not applied to her predecessors or to the bench as a whole. This undermines the impartiality and stability the Constitution is designed to protect.
To deny the Chief Justice the authority to complete cases entertained by the Supreme Court before her 70th birthday is to misunderstand the very nature of judicial function at the highest level. It risks undermining the rule of law for personal or political gain. The motion for recusal or delay should therefore be dismissed as contrary to the Constitution, established Supreme Court practice, and the broader principles of judicial independence and continuity.
The Chief Justice’s authority to conclude cases entertained by the Supreme Court before reaching the age of seventy is not only constitutionally enshrined but is also essential to the collective function and integrity of Liberia’s highest court. Any argument to the contrary is without legal merit and should be rejected to preserve the rule of law and the continuity of justice in Liberia.
__________________________________________________
Get Involved
Do you have additional facts to add to this insight or an opinion you would like to express?
Email Us
Additional References
Supreme Court Rules, Judiciary Law of Liberia, 2023Liberian Constitution (1986), Article 72(b)Judiciary Annual Report, Supreme Court of Liberia, 2024Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)International Commission of Jurists, "Judicial Continuity and Independence," 2022Legal Analysis Report, Center for Constitutional Studies, Liberia, 2025Judicial Ethics Review, Liberia Judicial Oversight Commission, 2025
Comments