Kanio Bai Gbala Goes to Chief Justice’s Rescue -Dismisses Isaac Jackson’s Grounds for “Nepotism” Allegations

MONROVIA – Liberian lawyer, Cllr. Kanio Bai Gbala, has come out strongly against a fellow lawyer, Atty. Isaac Jackson, who filed a complaint against Chief Justice Yamei Quiqui Gbeisay over allegations of nepotism related to the appointment of his son, Willeyon Gbeisay, as a magistrate. Gbala argues that the Office of the Ombudsman prayed to by Jackson for probe the Liberian Chief Justice lacks jurisdiction to investigate, citing constitutional provisions that vest judicial power exclusively in the Supreme Court and subordinate courts. According to Gbala, the Chief Justice is accountable only through judicial self-regulation via the Judicial Inquiry Commission and, in cases of grave misconduct, through impeachment under Article 71 of the Liberian Constitution. Jackson’s allegations of nepotism and breach of ethical duty, Gbala contends, are matters for the Legislature, not the Ombudsman, to address. He released a commentary titled, 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐦𝐛𝐮𝐝𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐧: 𝐀𝐧 𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲”. SEE BELOW IN THIS EDITION FOR THE COMMENTARY.

𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐦𝐛𝐮𝐝𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐧: 𝐀𝐧 𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲

𝐁𝐲 𝐂𝐥𝐥𝐫. 𝐊𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐨 𝐁𝐚𝐢 𝐆𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐚

𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐚𝐰, 𝐋𝐨𝐮𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐮𝐫 𝐆𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐒𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐚𝐰, 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚

Background

In an earlier article, we argued that His Honor Chief Justice Yamei Quiqui Gbeisay committed no wrong and violated no law when President Joseph N. Boakai appointed his son, Willeyon Gbeisay, as a magistrate. We concluded that the appointment did not offend the National Code of Conduct or any provision of the Liberian Constitution.

Notwithstanding this position, Atty. Isaac Jackson has now filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging that the Chief Justice’s familial relationship to the appointee constitutes nepotism and a breach of ethical duty. While public vigilance on governance is commendable, the filing of such a complaint before the Ombudsman is both legally and constitutionally misplaced. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the Chief Justice or any matter relating to judicial misconduct under Liberia’s governing laws.

1. Constitutional Status of the Chief Justice

Articles 65 and 66 of the 1986 Constitution vest judicial power exclusively in the Supreme Court and subordinate courts, making the Supreme Court the final arbiter of constitutional issues. The Chief Justice, as administrative and ceremonial head of the Judiciary, is constitutionally independent of the Executive.

Moreover, Article 71 provides that the Chief Justice and Associate Justices shall hold office during good behavior and may only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate for proved misconduct, gross breach of duty, or infamous crimes. This provision leaves no room for executive or administrative discipline over the Chief Justice. Any attempt by the Ombudsman, an Executive Branch body, to probe the Chief Justice therefore violates the separation of powers.

2. The Ombudsman Is an Executive Branch Institution

Part XV, Section 15.1 of the National Code of Conduct of 2014 establishes the Office of the Ombudsman within the Executive Branch of Government. Its mandate is to receive complaints, monitor compliance, and recommend appropriate administrative or disciplinary actions.

However, Article 3 of the Constitution enshrines the doctrine of separation of powers, prohibiting any person in one branch from exercising the powers of another. Since the Ombudsman operates within the Executive Branch, it cannot investigate, direct, or sanction the Judiciary without violating this core constitutional principle.

3. Judicial Discipline Lies Exclusively with the Judiciary

The Judiciary Law, Title 17 of the Liberian Code of Laws Revised, specifically Section 9.11, creates the Judicial Inquiry Commission which is the sole body authorized to investigate judicial misconduct. The Commission is empowered to receive and investigate complaints against judges of courts of record and courts not of record for misconduct or violation of judicial canons.

Findings of the Commission are reviewed by the Supreme Court, which retains final disciplinary authority. This system preserves judicial independence and internal accountability. For example, in In re: Judge Korboi N. Johnson (March Term 2018), the Supreme Court acted on a Commission recommendation to sanction a Circuit Judge, demonstrating the proper institutional pathway for judicial discipline.

4. Exclusive Procedure for Chief Justice Misconduct

When the alleged misconduct involves the Chief Justice, the only lawful process is impeachment under Article 71. The historical precedent of Chief Justice Chea Cheapoo’s impeachment in 1987 remains the definitive example. Neither the Ombudsman nor any other executive institution has legal competence to inquire into or punish the Chief Justice’s conduct.

Even where the Code of Conduct is cited, Section 15.2 only authorizes the Ombudsman to recommend action to the competent authority. For the Chief Justice, the competent authority is the Legislature, not the President or any executive agency.

5. Separation of Powers and the Legal Nullity of the Complaint

Under Article 66, no authority may review or interfere with the Supreme Court’s judgments or internal actions. An Ombudsman inquiry into the Chief Justice would therefore constitute an unconstitutional review of the Judiciary’s operations.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in Republic of Liberia v. The House of Representatives (2019), holding that each branch of government is autonomous in its constitutional domain and may not be subjected to control by another save as expressly provided by the Constitution. Accordingly, the filing of a complaint against the Chief Justice before the Ombudsman is legally void and constitutionally futile.

Conclusion

The Chief Justice of Liberia is accountable only through judicial self-regulation via the Judicial Inquiry Commission and, in cases of grave misconduct, through impeachment under Article 71. The Office of the Ombudsman, an Executive Branch entity created under the Code of Conduct, lacks any constitutional or statutory authority to investigate or discipline judicial officers.

Thus, while concerns about nepotism and ethics merit open discussion, pursuing them through the Ombudsman is an exercise in constitutional futility, a misstep that offends the doctrine of separation of powers and undermines the very independence the Judiciary was designed to protect.

The Office of the Ombudsman itself must also exercise restraint and fidelity to law by refusing to entertain filings that exceed its legal mandate or jurisdiction. To do otherwise would amount to willful participation in an illegality and a violation of the very constitutional principles it was created to uphold.