The Respondent also cited the cases of; Hope Democratic Party and Alhaji Haruna
Yahara Shaba V. The Federal Republic of Nigeria and 5 others ECW/CCJ/JUD/19/15
and Dr. Malachi Z. York V. The Republic of Liberia ECW/CCJ/JUD/5/16, which are
both cases decided by this very court, in support of its contention.
21. The Respondent further argued that Applicant is ineligible to benefit as a retiree
because he resigned his appointment before the expiration of his tenure. They cited
the Abuja Agreement of 19/8/1995 which Supplements the Cotonou and Akosombo
Agreement as subsequently clarified by the Accra Agreement which provides at
Section 3 that:
“Holders of positions within the Transitional Government as defined by the
Cotonou Accord who wish to contest the election provided for under the
Schedule of Implementation shall vacate office three months before the
date of elections. They shall be replaced by their nominees or by persons
nominated by the parties represented in the Council of State”.
The submission of the Respondent is that Applicant is not a retiree and therefore
not entitled to any retirement benefits. Having resigned his appointment to contest
for another position in the government of Liberia, and therefore denial of the
retirement benefits does not amount to violation of the human rights of the
Applicant. The Respondent submited specifically that Articles 2, 6, 7, 22 and 25 of
the UDHR nor Articles 2(1), 9, and 11 of the ICESCR. The Respondent further argued
that equality before the law is a basic tenet of the Liberian Government as
contained in Article 11(c) & (d) of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia, Constitution.
22. The Respondent therefore sought the following reliefs:
ORDER SOUGHT BY THE RESPONDENTS:
1. A declaration that the Application is inadmissible as the Respondents are not
in violation of the human rights of the Applicant as alleged under:
- Articles 1,2,3,4 & 19 of the ACHPR.
- Articles 6,7,22 and 25(1) of the UDHR.
- Articles 2(1), 9, & 11 of the ICESCR.
2. The Applicant should pay all the cost of litigation incurred for the
unnecessary expenditure the Applicant has caused the Respondents as a
result of this frivolous suit.
8