IPNEWS: The Sixth Judicial Circuit Court’s Judge George Smith has alleged that unknown individuals have threatened his life following the summons of majority bloc speaker, Richard N. Koon.
The judge claimed that he received numerous calls from his wife and others, warning that his house would be burned down and his life destroyed if he proceeded with the case.
Judge Smith emphasized that threats against a judge’s life undermine the exercise of Constitutional and Statutory functions. He remarked, “There is a doctrine that says he who receives the benefit must also be prepared to undertake the burden. Prestige, honor, and dignity attached to judgeship also go with the burden.”
Judge Smith made this assertion during the hearing of a petition for declaratory judgment, coupled with a motion to dismiss filed by both lawyers in the Capitol saga.
Following the judge’s assertion, embattled speaker Koffa’s lawyers argued that they had filed a Bill of Information to the court. They stated that the movants/respondents publicly threatened the judge in gatherings and on the radio, vowing to impeach him if he continued to handle the case.
Koffa’s lawyers further argued that it was necessary for the judge to conduct an investigation into the threats.
“Your Honor may take evidence to allow petitioners/respondents to produce evidence that threats were made against Your Honor and published in newspapers and on the radio for the safety and integrity of this Court, protected under Article 73 of the 1986 Constitution,” they stated.
The movant lawyers asserted that the independence and integrity of a judge is constitutionally inviolable, protecting the court from processes such as arrest, investigation, or summoning for decisions rendered.
They prayed the court to conduct an investigation to establish the veracity of the allegations and thereafter proceed with any further hearing in the matter.
On the other hand, lawyers representing majority bloc speaker Richard Nagbe Koon debunked the claims, stating that they were not aware of any threats made against the judge.
They argued that the Respondents’ Counsel had said the judge is protected by the constitution. Therefore, any irresponsible and emotional allegations against the judge, without basis in law or constitutional ground, should not postpone the hearing.
The majority bloc lawyers emphasized that if their clients believed the matter could have been resolved in chambers, they would not have hired a lawyer to defend them in court.
They concluded that there was good and sufficient evidence that movants were ready to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law, despite the meritless nature of the declaratory judgment proceedings. They prayed the court to proceed with the hearing of the Motion to Dismiss. Source SPOON TV LIVE
