The Supreme Court of Liberia has granted Alvin Teage Jalloh’s petition filed against the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Justice and Liberia’s Ambassador to the United States of America.
This comes as a result of Alvin Teage Jalloh’s petition filed on July 12, 2021, challenging the constitutionality of Section 22.1 and 22.2 of the Alien and Nationality Law, Title 4 of the Liberian Code of Laws.
Jalloh resides in the United States of America and a natural-born Liberian citizen, born unto two Liberian parents in Bopolu, Gbarpolu. He said in June 2010, he wanted to travel from the United States of America to Liberia, but the website of the Liberian Embassy in Washington D.C., and further authenticated by a staff at the Embassy, said that the Alien and Nationality Law required that he obtain a non-immigrant visa from the Liberian Embassy in Washington D.C.
He contented that the decision by the Embassy and that of the government’s enforcement of Section 22.1 and 22.2 of the Alien and Nationality Law violated the provision of the Liberian Constitution.
Jalloh further noted that the sections listed above, which were enacted long before the adoption of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia, were automatically repealed by Article 95(a) of the 1986 Constitution as being inconsistent with the due process clause of Article 20(a).
In resistance, the Government of Liberia (GOL) argued that Jalloh, being a naturalized citizen of the United States of America, lacked the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of Section 22.1 and 22.2.
State lawyers said Section 22.1 and 22.2 do not violate the due process of the Constitution. They added that the Constitution authorizes the Legislature to enact laws by which a citizen of Liberia shall lose his/her citizenship.
Handling down the opinion, the Supreme Court ruled on two issues: whether or not Jalloh has a legal standing to file such petition, and whether or not section 22.1 and 22.2 of the Alien and Nationality law violate any provision of the 1986 Constitution and therefore were repealed by implication under Article 95(a) when the Constitution came into force and effect on January 6, 1986.
Addressing the first issue, the Supreme Court said the state is untenable. Jalloh, having acquired Liberian citizenship at birth and obtained naturalization in the United State, is directly affected within the category of persons whose Liberian citizenship have suffered or are in danger of suffering from the Liberian Government enforcement of Section 22.1 and 22.2 of the Alien and Nationality Law; therefore, Jalloh has legal standing to bring the Government of Liberia (GOL) to court.
Secondly, the two challenged provision of the Alien and Nationality Law were undoubtedly enacted prior to the passage of the 1986 Constitution, but it is only Section 22.2 of the law that is found in clear violation of Article 20(a), as Section 22.1 is a mere recital of how a Liberian citizen may lose his/her citizenship which does not contravene any provision of the Constitution.
“The general rule is that a statue existing at the adoption of a new state Constitution cannot be upheld if the statue is in conflict with the plain language of the Constitution. If there is a conflict between a statue and a new Constitutional provision, the former must give way, since all statues which are inconsistent with a new constitution are repealed by implication,” the Supreme Court opined.
“Therefore, Section 22.2 of the Alien and Nationality Law, enacted prior to the adoption of the 1986 Liberia Constitution, is in direct conflict with the plain language of Article 20(a) of the 1986.”
Accordingly, Article 20(a) of the 1986 Constitution mandates that there must be a hearing before deprivation of any right or privilege may occur, and Section 22.2 of the Alien and Nationality Law provides that loss citizenship under section 22.1 shall result solely from the performance by a citizen of the acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in that section. Therefore, one cannot automatically loss his/her citizenship without resort to any judicial proceedings to nullify or cancel his/her citizenship.
“Wherefore and in view of the fact, Mr. Jalloh’s petition is hereby granted. Section 22.2 of the Alien and Nationality Law, to the extent that it provides for loss of citizenship solely on account of the performance by a citizen of the acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in section 22.1 without the institution by the government of any proceedings to nullify or cancel citizenship, is in violation of the due process clause under Article 20(a) of the 1986 Constitution.