Authored By:Sam S Siryon
Apeejay Stya University School of Legal Studies
Decided: August 13, 2015
Court: Supreme Court of Liberia
Citation: Clark et al vs. Clinton Johnson et al LRSC 34 (2015)
Bench: Mr. Justice Ja’neh
Parties: Isaac Clark (First Petitioner) and Blamo Weah (Second Petitioner) Represented by Cllr. James C.R. Flomo and Elijah Y. Cheapoo Sr. as Public Defenders of Montserrado along with Cllr. J. Laveli Supuwood versus Her Honor Ceaineh Clinton – Johnson, His Honor James B. Cooper, Ministry of Justice thru the City Solicitor (As Respondents)
Introduction:
The current case focus on a conflict between statute requiring an immediate case transfer for sexual offenses and the constitutional right to a preliminary examination wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Liberia had to ascertain the constitutionality of a law that streamlines the judicial proceedings for sexual offense cases. The Liberian statute required cases to be sent directly to circuit court within 72 hours, bypassing a preliminary examination which is generally required by the Constitution. It was a case for the Judges to determine the constitutionality of statutory provision and whether it overrides the provision of the constitution. The petitioner – Clark was arrested for rape. Acting under Section 25.3(a) of the Act Creating Criminal Court ‘E’, a magistrate sent the case to the circuit court within the prescribed 72 hours, thus bypassing the usual preliminary examination within 48 hours as required under the Liberian Constitution. Mr. Clark argued that this was in violation of Article 21(f) of the constitution as the 48 hours stipulated under the constitution is the minimum period for a preliminary examination.
Facts and Background:
Mr. Isaac Clark (First petitioner) was arrested in May 2013 on suspicion of rape. The magistrate court transferred the case to the circuit court without a preliminary examination. Clark argued thus was a violation of his right to a preliminary examination under the constitution of Liberia. It was thus, argued by the Respondent that the Specific Act creating a Specialized court for sexual offenses bypassed the need for a preliminary examination at the magistrate level. The central question was; If this Act violated the constitutional right to a preliminary examination?
Core Legal Conflict:
The legal conflict centered around whether a specific law regarding sexual offense cases conflicted with the Liberian Constitution concerning a defendant’s right to a preliminary examination?
Legally, whether section 25.3(a) of the Act Creating Criminal Court ‘E’ providing magistrates the power to send sexual offense cases to the circuit court within 72 hours of arrest without a preliminary examination was violative of Article 21(f) of the Liberian Constitution which mandated a preliminary examination within 48 hours in criminal matter to determine if there exist enough evidence for detention?
Issues Raised for contention:
Whether Statutory Mandate Could Supersede Constitutional Rights: That the Act Creating Criminal Court E required magistrates to forward sexual offense cases to the circuit court within 72 hours without preliminary examinations whether was violative of the Constitutional right to a preliminary examination within 48 hours as guaranteed under Article 21(f) of the Liberian Constitution?
Whether the 72 hours did not Constitute Possible Unlawful Preventive Detention: That bypassing the preliminary examination and forwarding the case to the circuit court within 72 hours leading to prolonged detention was a potential violation of the prohibition against preventive detention?
Whether the Purpose of Preliminary Examination could Justify Lengthy Pre-trial Detention?
Petitioner’s Argument:
The petitioners argued that the Act’s requirement for magistrates to forward sexual offense cases to the circuit court within 72 hours of arrest, without a preliminary examination/ investigation, conflicted with Article 21(f) of the Constitution. Article 21(f) which generally mandates a preliminary examination within 48 hours in criminal matters to determine if a prima facie case exists. It was argued by the first petitioner (Mr. Clark) that the Act violated his constitutional right by denying him a preliminary examination. He further argued that the omission, combined with the additional time required by the forwarding process, effectively resulted in unlawful preventive detention, thus it was violative of the constitutional rights of the accused. The other petitioners further sought a writ of mandamus to compel the judge of the circuit court to grant a ‘nolle prosequi’.
Respondent’s Argument:
The respondents being represented by the Ministry of Justice and Judge Clinton Johnson argued that a writ of mandamus sought by the petitioner was inappropriate because a mandamus is intended to compel an official to perform a duty prescribed by law, and the respondent had not violated any duty. It was also argued that the Act Creating Criminal Court ‘E’ conferred exclusive original jurisdiction over sexual crimes to that court and explicitly stripped magistrate courts of the power to conduct preliminary examinations in all such cases. Therefore, the Respondent judge acted properly in refusing to grant a ‘nolle prosequi’ and in adhering to the new law, arguing that ordering a magistrate to conduct a preliminary examination in sexual offense cases would be an illegal act in contravention to the specific statute.
They further maintained that the law, Section 25.3(e), did not violate the constitution, as the legislature had the authority to create courts with specific jurisdictional powers and to amend or repeal previous acts (such as the general criminal procedure law).
In advancement to of the contentions, they further argued that the objective of promoting witness protection in sexual offense cases (by avoiding direct confrontation with the accused at an early stage) was a valid legislative goal that outweighed the additional time required by forwarding cases ton the circuit court.
Court’s Ruling/Decision:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Liberia rejected the arguments of the Petitioners and upheld the constitutionality of the Act. The Court determined that the objective of the Act, which was to promote witness protection by shielding victims of sexual offenses from public exposure and the psychological harm of directly facing the defendant in a lower court, outweighed the general constitutional provision for 48-hours of preliminary examination. Also reasoning that the legislature could establish specialized procedures such as established under the Specific Act, so as to protect victims and witnesses in sexual offense cases. The Court ruled that forwarding such cases to the circuit court under the Specific Act did not violate the constitution, but that the magistrate courts are not adequately equipped to protect victims and witnesses in sensitive sexual offense cases from the trauma of public exposure during open preliminary hearings.
Significance of the case:
The case is significant in that it protects witnesses in sexual offense cases and justify a temporary delay in an accused person’s preliminary examination, even if this potentially characterizes the extra time as preventive detention. The case addressed the conflict between two Liberian laws including;
- Article 21(f) of the Constitution, which requires a preliminary examination (to determine if a prima facie case exists) within 48 hours for general criminal matters, preventing indefinite preventive detention.
- Section 25.3(a) of the Act Creating Criminal Court E, which requires a magistrate to send sexual offense case to the circuit court within 72 hours of an arrest without first conducting a preliminary examination.
Holding that the Act was not violative of the Constitution with reasoning that the magistrate courts lack resources to protect witnesses, particularly sexual assault victims, from the distress of confronting the defendant during an open preliminary examination, and finding that witness protection in sensitive cases like these, outweighed the strict 48-hours constitutional limit for a preliminary examination, provided the case is promptly send to a higher court, balanced the accused’s right to a prompt preliminary examination with the state’s interest in protecting vulnerable victims and facilitating their testimony without additional trauma.
The ruling established a specific procedural exception for sexual offense cases, allowing for a longer initial detention period (up to 72 hours) and the bypassing of the magistrate’s preliminary examination for the sake of witness protection. It further illustrates the Hon’ble Supreme Court balancing an accused person’s right to prompt judicial review with the state’s interest in protecting vulnerable victims and ensuring effective prosecution of serious crimes. This ruling affirmed that specific legislative procedures designed for compelling public interest reasons could modify the timing and venue of pre-trial hearings, provided that they do not fundamentally abrogate the right to a legal challenge of detention.
Author: Sam S Siryon
BA.LLB Honors
Apeejay Stya University School of Legal Studies
References:
Clark et al. v Clinton Johnson et al. LRSC 34 (2015)
https://liblaw.org/document/clark-et-al-v-clinton-johnson-et-al-lrsc-34-2015/
An Act Establishing Criminal Court ‘E’ (Title 17, Ch. 25) Legislative Assembly, Republic of Liberia
Article 21 (f) Constitution of Liberia 1986
The Right to the writ of Habeas Corpus and the right to be presented to the court within period specified by law.
Clark vs. Clinton – Johnson; Legal Information Institute, Gender Justice Last visited December 2, 2025
https://www.law.cornell.edu/gender-justice/resource/clark_v._clinton-johnson
