The corruption trial of former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah and other senior top ex-officials of the former CDC government has hit another snag.
State prosecutors or government lawyers today, Monday December 23,2024 filed another writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court against Criminal Court “C” Judge A. Blamo Dixon and former Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission boss A. Ndubusi Nwabudike to be out of Samuel D. Tweah and other defendants.
The government through the Justice Ministry has delayed the hearing of prosecution’s exceptions to defendant’s separate criminal appearance bond and for the hearing of defendant’s separate motions for justification of sureties, the Republic of Liberia by and thru the Justice Ministry has requested Criminal Court “C” to defer the said hearings to Friday November 15,2024 (last week) to enable prosecution to attend a Habeas corpus before Criminal Court “A”. Samuel Tweah, Other Former CDC Officials’ Corruption Trial Drags On – News Public Trust
In the latest development, the writ of Certiorari was filed at Supreme Court against Judge Blamo A. Dixon after he denied state lawyers motion to rescue himself while Cllr. Nwabudike should be out of the case because he’s not a licensed lawyer by the LNBA despite Supreme Court ruled that he should be reinstated.
Petitioner’s petition to the Supreme Court says that first Respondent Judge Dixon denied Petitioner’s Motion for Recusal, even though second Respondent did not file resistance in keeping with the standards set by law, and constructively agreed with Petitioner that first Respondent should recuse himself.
The petitioner added that first Respondent denied Petitioner’s Motion to Strike second Respondents’ Resistance to Petitioner’s Motion to sustain the purported Resistance of second Respondent even though both Recuse, and second Respondent’s purported Resistance and the accompanying affidavit were signed by a person who has not obtained licensed to practice law in the Republic of Liberia.
Your Honour is requested to take judicial notice of the attached signed and sealed communication from the Liberian National Bar Association declaring that “Mr. A. Ndubuisi Nwabudike is not a licensed member of the LNBA that demonstrate that he is not a licensed lawyer.
The petitioner avers that first Respondent, as justification for his denial of Petitioner’s Motion to Strike in which Petitioner informed the first Respondent that Mr. A. Ndubuisi Nwanbudike was not licensed to practice and the he had no license number issued by the LNBA, said that the Honourable Supreme Court certified Nwanbodike to practice law in the Republic of Liberia and that the Supreme Court is higher than the LNBA, referencing a judgment of the Supreme Court on Mr. Nwanbudike’s eligibility to practice law.
Further to Count Three above, Petitioner says that in order to impose himself, first Respondent consciously ignored the part of the judgment that instructed Mr. A. Ndubuisi Nwanbudike to pursue obtaining his license from the Bar; something Mr. Nwanbudike failed to do up to and including the drafting and filing of Petitioner’s Petition.
Petitioner says that by sustaining the “Response” filed by second Respondents through a person who is not licensed to practice law within the bailiwick of the Republic of Liberia, when first Respondent had knowledge that A. Ndubuisi Nwabudike had not met the requirement to practice law, as first Respondent conjecturingly asked for the license number of Mr. Nwabudike and was merely supplied a tax identification number, both first Respondent and the lawyers of the second Respondent aided and facilitated the “unauthorized practice of law”; a violation of our ethical code for which Rule 37 of the Code For The Moral And Ethical Conduct Of Lawyers prescribes suspension form practice by the Supreme Court as remedy.
Petitioner says further that first Respondent’s statement, as contained in the third paragraph of the second page of the referenced ruling, that AUTOROVT 8702 AIMINOW Ad “that the Court wondered whether or not the detention of only Co- Defendant Samuel D. Tweh, Jr. at the Monrovia Central Prison Compound will help to establish the Case of the Prosecution against the Defendants” is prejudicial to the cause of the Republic of Liberia, sells the false narrative that the Republic is only interested in the detention of the Defendants, and reinforces the argument of Petitioner that first Respondent has manifested that he is incapable of being impartial in the case out of which Petitioner’s Petition grows, since in fact and in deed, the Petitioner has never requested the detention of the Defendants and that the case is public and has members of the public usually in attendance.
Petitioner is fully cognizant and acknowledges that detention of defendants is the exclusive function of the Court after a finding that some act or omission, on the part of a defendant, which the law forbids has occurred.
Petitioner incorporates the above counts of Petitioner’s Petition and reiterates that where the conduct of the presiding judge is intricate of itself that he should step aside without any request from the State. This is what the Judicial Cannon (Cannon Ten), captioned “Essential Conduct of a Judge” says, “A judge should be temperate, attentive, impartial and since he is to administer the law, interpret it and apply it to the facts, he should be studious of the principles of the law and diligent in endeavoring to ascertain the facts.”
Additionally, Petitioner says in further support of Count Six of Petitioner’s Petition, that first Respondent mislead the public when he remarked, in his ruling sustaining the “Response” of second Respondent that “the Justice Presiding-In-Chambers sanctioned the endorsement of the Bonds of all of the Defendants”.
The reality is that the Chamber Justice acknowledged that the bonds of the Defendants had defects especially in the wake of the surety’s acknowledgement that the properties proffered as bond had tax liens on them, but as was legally within his discretion, decided not to issue the earlier writ of certiorari prayed for.
In consequence of the various prejudicial actions of first Respondent, he has positioned himself as incapable of being impartial.
Petitioner’s request the court to take judicial notice of the records and minutes of the court that the 1st Respondent has never demonstrated impartiality during these proceeding and thereby requesting him to recuse himself. Further, the records also shows that the Petitioner/Movant Motion for first Respondent’s to recuse himself, by operation of law was never resisted; since the purported resistance was defective.
Therefore, the judge by-himself cannot insist that he must hear the matter over the objection by both the Prosecution and Defendant, and to do so input motive.
WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, Petitioner most respectfully prays Your Honor and this Honorable court for the issuance of the Writ of Certiorari against the Respondents and grant unto the Petitioner all and singular the relief your honor may deem just, legal and equitable in the premise.
