The Law of Unintended Consequences? The Supreme Court Effectively Created Lawful Dual Citizenship for Certain Liberians as a Result of its Decision in "Jalloh v. King-Akerele".

Section 22.21 of Liberia's Aliens and Nationality Law (hereafter, "ANL"), which provided for the automatic loss of Liberian citizenship, when among other acts, a Liberian citizen took the citizenship of another country, was unequivocal and blunt: The loss of citizenship under Section 22.12 of this title shall result solely from the performance by a citizen of acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in such section, and without the institution by the Government of any proceedings to nultify or cancel such citizenship [Emphasis supplied] This statute was enacted when Liberia's first Constitution, adopted in 1847 was in force. Section 22.2 remained the law with the coming into force of the current Constitution adopted in 1986. This writer was not able to locate any evidence regarding the enforcement of Section 22.2 of the ANL other than the case discussed here. Notwithstanding that Jalloh v. King-Akere12 (hereafter, "Jalloh") is an original in Liberia's juridical history, a case of first impression and a landmark decision, the Court did not break any new legal grounds in deciding it. This paper considers the central principles of law that animated the Jalloh decision, including Liberian Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding standing to bring a lawsuit claiming that a law is unconstitutional. It demonstrates how the Abrogation Clause of the Constitution (Article 95 (a) that constitutionally abrogated the 1847 Constitution but retained any existing "enactment or rule of law" that is "not inconsistent with any provision" of the 1986 Constitution affected the decision of the Court.4 The paper examines the Court's application of due process case law, including those decided under the 1847 Constitution, and the Due Process Clause of the 1986 Constitution (Article 20(a). The paper also looks at the authority of the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of laws and its standards for interpreting the Constitution. Taken together, these legal principles, rules, and authorities formed the decisional building blocks the Court used to reach its ruling. The paper concludes that the effective outcome of the Jalloh decision, whether it intended to or not, is that the Liberian Supreme Court has created a status of lawful dual citizenship for Liberians who acquired citizenship in another country or on "account of the performance by a citizen of acts or fulfillment of the [other] conditions specified in Section 22.1." By declaring the automatic loss provision, Section 22.2, unconstitutional, which was the sole mechanism of enforcement of Section 22.1, Jalloh means that the affected persons continue to be dual citizens of Liberia and another country until and unless the Government institutes judicial proceedings against them and prevails in those proceedings. Following the discussion of the legal holdings and principles of law that undergird the ruling in the case, the examination of how the Court reached its decision, the analysis of the decision and the legal consequence of the decision, the paper discusses and offers answers to the following topical questions: (a) What is the substantive legal result of the Jalloh decision? (b) H/hat does Jalloh mean for Liberians who have acquired citizenship in other countries'? (c) Considering the result of Jalloh, is a constitutional or statutory amendment still necessary to grant dual citizenship to Liberians'? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]