President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf needs to be obedient to the ruling of the Supreme Court suspending the Attorney General of the Country, Justice Minister Christiana Tah from practicing law for six months no matter how faulty one may consider it. This is because it carries with it the authority of the Constitution of Liberia. Obedience to the Supreme Court’s ruling would indeed demonstrate respect for the tenets of democracy in the context of the rule of law as professed by Madam Sirleaf and her administration.
Since the inception of the Sirleaf regime, the President has always professed respect for the rule of law, and if she should be taken seriously in this respect, Madam Sirleaf’s option in dealing with the Tah suspension issue should not undermine the Constitution; it should rather be a decisive action that would portray her and the government good in respect of protecting and defending the constitution, which of course is imbedded in her oath of office. Such action expected of the Madam is clearly to either remove her Justice Minister from office by appointment of acting or proper Minister of Justice pending the service of the contempt punishment meted out to Madam Tah by the high court. As the matter of fact, Minister Tah should not be made indispensable as attorney general, the forerunner of justice in the country, at the expense of the Constitution.
The Issue
It is recalled that sometime last year, former Agriculture Minister Chris Toe proceeded to the Civil Law Court and Complained the Front PageAfrica Newspaper through its Publisher Rodney Sieh for running what in essence of the complaint was an irking story the paper. The story was said to be culled from official audit report by the General Audit Commission (GAC). The report alleged to some extent in part or in whole that the Agriculture Ministry did not account for some money spent from public coffers to fight army worms that were destroying crops in Bong County. Toe contended that the FrontpageAfrica story was libelous and had caused him damage in the tone of US$1.5 which he went to claim; and upon hearing, the Court awarded Mr. Toe the case. Report said Rodney’s lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court but did not end the appeal process.
What might have happened to derive a reprimand by the Supreme Court is still seem to be a myth, but Sieh was said to have been remanded to prison in the wake of the claimed by former Agriculture Minister Toe. When public sentiments was built as the Sieh issue became a media agenda, the FrontPageAfrica’s managing editor of illness; he was taken to the JFK Medical Center where he was taking treatment when Justice Minister Tah granted him a “Compassionate Release” based on request of Sieh’s lawyers, claiming that it was part of her constitutional duties under section 34.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The Attorney General did not mention whether or not the power of her office to grant “Compassionate Leave” applies in a situation where the Supreme Court has jailed someone for contempt, which was apparently in the case of Rodney Sieh. As I followed the issue, I read views of some legal minds saying Sieh's release did not accord with Liberian law, although the Minister of Justice said she had invoked the criminal procedure law to temporally release Mr. Sieh from the Monrovia Central Prison on Compassionate ground. The issue now becomes whether or not the Justice Minister has the right to grant the compassionate leave in the circumstances that had prevailed in the Rodney Sieh Case; whether or not Sieh was jailed for contempt or for Toe’s damage claim and whether or not the Supreme Court was in error in its ruling against Minister Tah.
The Supreme Court Ruling
So Mr. Sieh was released from the Monrovia Central Prison under a clause of the Criminal Procedural Law Section 34.20 in the Liberia Code of Law Revise (LCLR) Volume I. This law states inter alia that “…the Attorney General shall formulate rules or regulations governing compassionate leave from institutions and in accordance with such rules and regulations, may grant any prisoner to leave his institution for short periods of time, either by himself or in the custody of an officer, to visit a close relative who is seriously ill, to attend the funeral of a close relative, to return to his home during what appears to be his own illness or to return home for compelling reasons which strongly appeal to compassion.” But the Supreme Court claimed that this clause does not apply in the Sieh situation. No! The court says it cannot be reason why Mr. Sieh was release since the FrontPage Africa boss was jailed on the orders of the Supreme Court for his failure to exhaust an appeal process started by his legal counsels in his behalf.
Notwithstanding, Sieh, represented by his legal counsels Beyan D. Howard and Fonati Koffa, was released by the Minister of Justice Christiana Tah through application of the “Compassionate Leave” law. Please I should not be misunderstood in the presentation of this public opinion of mine, for my argument is not to say it was wrong to release sieh; I am saying this right to freedom should have been rightly channeled to avoid the present hullabaloo, and since the high court has problem and meted out punishment to a high profile official, the President should now act decisively not to undermine the constitution of Liberia.
In a communication from the Supreme Court quoted in the media, the high court sitting in its October Term commanded its marshal to invite Justice Minister Tah (on Wednesday, October 16 at 9: 00 a.m.) to show reason why she should not be held in contempt. The Court, the final arbiter for justice in the land, described as unlawful the release of Mr. Sieh having served imprisonment for over one month and two weeks with his rights to seek medical treatment respected from time to time while in prison, according to reports.
The Constitution and Executive Reluctance
Sieh was let out by the Justice Minister reason that led to her suspension by the Supreme Court while the court’s action carried with it the authority of the Constitution. This makes the reluctance by the Office of the President to suspend the Justice Minister or remove her from office in compliant with the high court’s ruling worrisome. Recently, the President was quoted in press release that she has taken note of Justice Minister Tah’s suspension by the high court stopping the Attorney General from practicing law, and has commenced consultations for optional action. Consultation for optional action? I must restate that this is just meant to undermine the Constitution, for any such consultation that precludes concrete action replacing the suspended official contravenes the Constitution which provides for coordination in the exercise of their separation of powers.
Coordination in this context should not be seen as reason for the Supreme Court to ask for the President’s permission before ruling on judicial or constitutional matters since that would warrant interference with the dispensation of justice. In Article III of the 1986 Constitution on which Liberia presently exercises her sovereignty, it is provided that “…. Consistent with the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances, no person holding office in one of the branches shall hold office in or exercise any of the powers assigned to either of the other two branches except as otherwise provided in this Constitution; and no person holding office in one of the said branches shall serve on any autonomous public agency.”
In this case, the objective of the President’s consultation is incomprehensible, since the court’s judgment was clear and comprehensible in the absence of theoretical legal knowledge of its implications. For me, I don’t understand what the President meant by wanting implication of the ruling against the Justice Minister for which she said she was consulting before action. This executive position of course contravenes Article 65 of the Constitution which says, “Judgments of the Supreme Court shall be final and binding and shall not be subject to appeal or review by any other branch of Government. Nothing in this Article shall prohibit administrative consideration of the Justifiable matter prior to review by a court of competent jurisdiction….”
Besides Article 65, Article 66 of the same Constitution states that “The Supreme Court shall be final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from courts of record, courts not of record, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or any other authority, both as to law and fact except cases involving ambassadors, ministers, or cases in which a country is a party. In all such cases, the Supreme Court shall exercise original jurisdiction. The Legislature shall make no law nor create any exceptions as would deprive the Supreme Court of any of the powers granted herein.” So and in view of these citations, who is the lawyer that will advise that the President should act unconstitutionally?
Certainly, the reluctance by the President to remove Minister Tah from office in support of the Supreme Court judgment leaves much to ponder. Maybe the President is saying that the Supreme Court ruling should be given another interpretation by her lawyers, and that her action would be on the basis of the outcome of her consultation, or perhaps she insinuating that the Supreme Court was wrong to have suspended Attorney General and Justice Minister Tah? Does the office of Attorney General and Justice Minister feel adequate to operate without performing its cardinal function as Dean of the Supreme Court Bar? These and many others continue to filter down rational minds in the wake of the reluctance by the President to suspend or remove from office the Attorney General and Justice Minister in adherence to the Supreme Court ruling.
Since the President is concerned with implication of the ruling, the meaning of practice of law comes to the fore, in the face of the Supreme Court’s contention that the Attorney General is suspended from the practice of law for six months. In its most general sense, definition of the clause “practice of law” involves giving legal advice to clients, drafting legal documents (including legislations) for clients, and representing clients in legal negotiations and court proceedings such as lawsuits, and is applied to the professional services of a lawyer or attorney at law, barrister, solicitor, or civil law notary. This infact includes a growing number of legal document assistant services which have traditionally been offered only by lawyers and their employee paralegals. So in the case of the Attorney General who is basically the prime person to play these roles including the drafting of laws amongst others for the state, the suspension means she is stopped for the period of the suspension from doing these legal businesses for the state, especially as Dean for the Supreme Court Bar.
In its opinion and judgment, the Francis Korkpor Bench adjudged: “That the respondents, Counselor Christiana P. Tah, Minister of Justice/Attorney General and Counselor Beyan D. Howard committed contempt against the judiciary. Their actions [to grant "compassionate release" to the FrontPageAfrica’s Rodney Sieh jailed last year in connection with a libel case instituted against him by former Agriculture Minister Chris Toe] were not in consonance with Section 34.20(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law of Liberia.”
The Supreme Court further ruled that, “The actions of the respondents were instead deliberately intended to proceed through the Executive Branch of Government and release a prisoner who had been imprisoned for contempt of court without any reference to the Judiciary, in utter violation of the doctrine of separation of powers as enshrined in our constitution. Their actions are therefore punishable as such.” The Court further ruled that “For her role in releasing Rodney D. Sieh from prison as well as her persistent affront to this court demonstrated in her refusal to reverse the action which formed the basis for the contempt proceedings, notwithstanding her Counsel’s promise to return Rodney D. Sieh to prison, co-respondent Christiana P. Tah, Minister of Justice/Attorney General, is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the Republic of Liberia directly or indirectly for the period of six(6) months; while, for his role played in the release of Rodney D. Sieh from prison ….”
Why Consultation?
So what is incomprehensible that the President is holding consultation about? Who are the eminent lawyers and legal professionals [former Chief Justices and former Associate Justices of the Supreme Court] that will make President Sirleaf to fully comprehend the implications of the Court’s decision other than what is laid down in its findings? Certainly, it is quite interesting that the President who respects the rule of law will want to comprehend implications of a Supreme Court ruling before acting on it.
I wonder how the President thinks the ruling has abrogated the powers of her office as President of Liberia for which her action should be undermining the organic law of the State. What the President’s office is expected to do, if she wants to retain the services of Cllr. Christiana Tah in her government as justice minister, is to temporarily appoint an acting Minister of Justice pending expiration of the six months timeline of the Supreme Court ruling, since this judgment cannot be reversed in a manner reminiscent of extending executive clemency. It also means after six month, she may reinstate her. But as it is, it would appear that the President is being carried away by sentiments of friendship, which is not a good thing for this fledgling democracy.
If Ellen or her legal team knows that the Supreme Court has no business for suspending the Attorney General, it should be made clear at once, although that will change nothing to rescue Minister Tah since the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of justice, and it has said that the channel used by Minister Tah in granting the Compassionate Leave is not in line 34.20 of 1LCLR.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court would not certainly hear a case to derive the punitive measure if it has no real issue within the Justice Minister. I certainly think all of the justices wouldn’t find reason of suspending the Attorney General without any misconduct. Do they have malice against her? If the answer is a yes, then why? Whether or not there is malice, the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court given the constitutional authority to give final definition to constitutional and law issues. Therefore, the failure by the President to comply with the high court’s decision does nothing less than openly defying the authority of the Constitution of the land as inherent in the Supreme Court’s establishment. In my opinion, two wrongs cannot amount to a right. If in fact the Supreme Court was in error by the decision, the prudent thing to do is to either remove Madam Tah from office to avoid the looming constitutional crisis in sight or dialogue with the Supreme Court in the spirit of the coordination attending doctrine of separation of powers and functions, so that the high court may see reason of purging Cllr. Tah the suspension which is a punitive measure for contempt of the Supreme Court.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Don’t Undermine The Constitution, Madam President!
...There Is No Better Option Than to Comply
President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf needs to be obedient to the ruling of the Supreme Court suspending the Attorney General of the Country, Justice Minister Christiana Tah from practicing law for six months no matter how faulty one may consider it. This is because it carries with it the authority of the Constitution of Liberia. Obedience to the Supreme Court’s ruling would indeed demonstrate respect for the tenets of democracy in the context of the rule of law as professed by Madam Sirleaf and her administration.
Since the inception of the Sirleaf regime, the President has always professed respect for the rule of law, and if she should be taken seriously in this respect, Madam Sirleaf’s option in dealing with the Tah suspension issue should not undermine the Constitution; it should rather be a decisive action that would portray her and the government good in respect of protecting and defending the constitution, which of course is imbedded in her oath of office. Such action expected of the Madam is clearly to either remove her Justice Minister from office by appointment of acting or proper Minister of Justice pending the service of the contempt punishment meted out to Madam Tah by the high court. As the matter of fact, Minister Tah should not be made indispensable as attorney general, the forerunner of justice in the country, at the expense of the Constitution.
The Issue
It is recalled that sometime last year, former Agriculture Minister Chris Toe proceeded to the Civil Law Court and Complained the Front PageAfrica Newspaper through its Publisher Rodney Sieh for running what in essence of the complaint was an irking story the paper. The story was said to be culled from official audit report by the General Audit Commission (GAC). The report alleged to some extent in part or in whole that the Agriculture Ministry did not account for some money spent from public coffers to fight army worms that were destroying crops in Bong County. Toe contended that the FrontpageAfrica story was libelous and had caused him damage in the tone of US$1.5 which he went to claim; and upon hearing, the Court awarded Mr. Toe the case. Report said Rodney’s lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court but did not end the appeal process.
What might have happened to derive a reprimand by the Supreme Court is still seem to be a myth, but Sieh was said to have been remanded to prison in the wake of the claimed by former Agriculture Minister Toe. When public sentiments was built as the Sieh issue became a media agenda, the FrontPageAfrica’s managing editor of illness; he was taken to the JFK Medical Center where he was taking treatment when Justice Minister Tah granted him a “Compassionate Release” based on request of Sieh’s lawyers, claiming that it was part of her constitutional duties under section 34.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The Attorney General did not mention whether or not the power of her office to grant “Compassionate Leave” applies in a situation where the Supreme Court has jailed someone for contempt, which was apparently in the case of Rodney Sieh. As I followed the issue, I read views of some legal minds saying Sieh's release did not accord with Liberian law, although the Minister of Justice said she had invoked the criminal procedure law to temporally release Mr. Sieh from the Monrovia Central Prison on Compassionate ground. The issue now becomes whether or not the Justice Minister has the right to grant the compassionate leave in the circumstances that had prevailed in the Rodney Sieh Case; whether or not Sieh was jailed for contempt or for Toe’s damage claim and whether or not the Supreme Court was in error in its ruling against Minister Tah.
The Supreme Court Ruling
So Mr. Sieh was released from the Monrovia Central Prison under a clause of the Criminal Procedural Law Section 34.20 in the Liberia Code of Law Revise (LCLR) Volume I. This law states inter alia that “…the Attorney General shall formulate rules or regulations governing compassionate leave from institutions and in accordance with such rules and regulations, may grant any prisoner to leave his institution for short periods of time, either by himself or in the custody of an officer, to visit a close relative who is seriously ill, to attend the funeral of a close relative, to return to his home during what appears to be his own illness or to return home for compelling reasons which strongly appeal to compassion.” But the Supreme Court claimed that this clause does not apply in the Sieh situation. No! The court says it cannot be reason why Mr. Sieh was release since the FrontPage Africa boss was jailed on the orders of the Supreme Court for his failure to exhaust an appeal process started by his legal counsels in his behalf.
Notwithstanding, Sieh, represented by his legal counsels Beyan D. Howard and Fonati Koffa, was released by the Minister of Justice Christiana Tah through application of the “Compassionate Leave” law. Please I should not be misunderstood in the presentation of this public opinion of mine, for my argument is not to say it was wrong to release sieh; I am saying this right to freedom should have been rightly channeled to avoid the present hullabaloo, and since the high court has problem and meted out punishment to a high profile official, the President should now act decisively not to undermine the constitution of Liberia.
In a communication from the Supreme Court quoted in the media, the high court sitting in its October Term commanded its marshal to invite Justice Minister Tah (on Wednesday, October 16 at 9: 00 a.m.) to show reason why she should not be held in contempt. The Court, the final arbiter for justice in the land, described as unlawful the release of Mr. Sieh having served imprisonment for over one month and two weeks with his rights to seek medical treatment respected from time to time while in prison, according to reports.
The Constitution and Executive Reluctance
Sieh was let out by the Justice Minister reason that led to her suspension by the Supreme Court while the court’s action carried with it the authority of the Constitution. This makes the reluctance by the Office of the President to suspend the Justice Minister or remove her from office in compliant with the high court’s ruling worrisome. Recently, the President was quoted in press release that she has taken note of Justice Minister Tah’s suspension by the high court stopping the Attorney General from practicing law, and has commenced consultations for optional action. Consultation for optional action? I must restate that this is just meant to undermine the Constitution, for any such consultation that precludes concrete action replacing the suspended official contravenes the Constitution which provides for coordination in the exercise of their separation of powers.
Coordination in this context should not be seen as reason for the Supreme Court to ask for the President’s permission before ruling on judicial or constitutional matters since that would warrant interference with the dispensation of justice. In Article III of the 1986 Constitution on which Liberia presently exercises her sovereignty, it is provided that “…. Consistent with the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances, no person holding office in one of the branches shall hold office in or exercise any of the powers assigned to either of the other two branches except as otherwise provided in this Constitution; and no person holding office in one of the said branches shall serve on any autonomous public agency.”
In this case, the objective of the President’s consultation is incomprehensible, since the court’s judgment was clear and comprehensible in the absence of theoretical legal knowledge of its implications. For me, I don’t understand what the President meant by wanting implication of the ruling against the Justice Minister for which she said she was consulting before action. This executive position of course contravenes Article 65 of the Constitution which says, “Judgments of the Supreme Court shall be final and binding and shall not be subject to appeal or review by any other branch of Government. Nothing in this Article shall prohibit administrative consideration of the Justifiable matter prior to review by a court of competent jurisdiction….”
Besides Article 65, Article 66 of the same Constitution states that “The Supreme Court shall be final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from courts of record, courts not of record, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or any other authority, both as to law and fact except cases involving ambassadors, ministers, or cases in which a country is a party. In all such cases, the Supreme Court shall exercise original jurisdiction. The Legislature shall make no law nor create any exceptions as would deprive the Supreme Court of any of the powers granted herein.” So and in view of these citations, who is the lawyer that will advise that the President should act unconstitutionally?
Certainly, the reluctance by the President to remove Minister Tah from office in support of the Supreme Court judgment leaves much to ponder. Maybe the President is saying that the Supreme Court ruling should be given another interpretation by her lawyers, and that her action would be on the basis of the outcome of her consultation, or perhaps she insinuating that the Supreme Court was wrong to have suspended Attorney General and Justice Minister Tah? Does the office of Attorney General and Justice Minister feel adequate to operate without performing its cardinal function as Dean of the Supreme Court Bar? These and many others continue to filter down rational minds in the wake of the reluctance by the President to suspend or remove from office the Attorney General and Justice Minister in adherence to the Supreme Court ruling.
Since the President is concerned with implication of the ruling, the meaning of practice of law comes to the fore, in the face of the Supreme Court’s contention that the Attorney General is suspended from the practice of law for six months. In its most general sense, definition of the clause “practice of law” involves giving legal advice to clients, drafting legal documents (including legislations) for clients, and representing clients in legal negotiations and court proceedings such as lawsuits, and is applied to the professional services of a lawyer or attorney at law, barrister, solicitor, or civil law notary. This infact includes a growing number of legal document assistant services which have traditionally been offered only by lawyers and their employee paralegals. So in the case of the Attorney General who is basically the prime person to play these roles including the drafting of laws amongst others for the state, the suspension means she is stopped for the period of the suspension from doing these legal businesses for the state, especially as Dean for the Supreme Court Bar.
In its opinion and judgment, the Francis Korkpor Bench adjudged: “That the respondents, Counselor Christiana P. Tah, Minister of Justice/Attorney General and Counselor Beyan D. Howard committed contempt against the judiciary. Their actions [to grant "compassionate release" to the FrontPageAfrica’s Rodney Sieh jailed last year in connection with a libel case instituted against him by former Agriculture Minister Chris Toe] were not in consonance with Section 34.20(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law of Liberia.”
The Supreme Court further ruled that, “The actions of the respondents were instead deliberately intended to proceed through the Executive Branch of Government and release a prisoner who had been imprisoned for contempt of court without any reference to the Judiciary, in utter violation of the doctrine of separation of powers as enshrined in our constitution. Their actions are therefore punishable as such.” The Court further ruled that “For her role in releasing Rodney D. Sieh from prison as well as her persistent affront to this court demonstrated in her refusal to reverse the action which formed the basis for the contempt proceedings, notwithstanding her Counsel’s promise to return Rodney D. Sieh to prison, co-respondent Christiana P. Tah, Minister of Justice/Attorney General, is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the Republic of Liberia directly or indirectly for the period of six(6) months; while, for his role played in the release of Rodney D. Sieh from prison ….”
Why Consultation?
So what is incomprehensible that the President is holding consultation about? Who are the eminent lawyers and legal professionals [former Chief Justices and former Associate Justices of the Supreme Court] that will make President Sirleaf to fully comprehend the implications of the Court’s decision other than what is laid down in its findings? Certainly, it is quite interesting that the President who respects the rule of law will want to comprehend implications of a Supreme Court ruling before acting on it.
I wonder how the President thinks the ruling has abrogated the powers of her office as President of Liberia for which her action should be undermining the organic law of the State. What the President’s office is expected to do, if she wants to retain the services of Cllr. Christiana Tah in her government as justice minister, is to temporarily appoint an acting Minister of Justice pending expiration of the six months timeline of the Supreme Court ruling, since this judgment cannot be reversed in a manner reminiscent of extending executive clemency. It also means after six month, she may reinstate her. But as it is, it would appear that the President is being carried away by sentiments of friendship, which is not a good thing for this fledgling democracy.
If Ellen or her legal team knows that the Supreme Court has no business for suspending the Attorney General, it should be made clear at once, although that will change nothing to rescue Minister Tah since the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of justice, and it has said that the channel used by Minister Tah in granting the Compassionate Leave is not in line 34.20 of 1LCLR.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court would not certainly hear a case to derive the punitive measure if it has no real issue within the Justice Minister. I certainly think all of the justices wouldn’t find reason of suspending the Attorney General without any misconduct. Do they have malice against her? If the answer is a yes, then why? Whether or not there is malice, the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court given the constitutional authority to give final definition to constitutional and law issues. Therefore, the failure by the President to comply with the high court’s decision does nothing less than openly defying the authority of the Constitution of the land as inherent in the Supreme Court’s establishment. In my opinion, two wrongs cannot amount to a right. If in fact the Supreme Court was in error by the decision, the prudent thing to do is to either remove Madam Tah from office to avoid the looming constitutional crisis in sight or dialogue with the Supreme Court in the spirit of the coordination attending doctrine of separation of powers and functions, so that the high court may see reason of purging Cllr. Tah the suspension which is a punitive measure for contempt of the Supreme Court.
President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf needs to be obedient to the ruling of the Supreme Court suspending the Attorney General of the Country, Justice Minister Christiana Tah from practicing law for six months no matter how faulty one may consider it. This is because it carries with it the authority of the Constitution of Liberia. Obedience to the Supreme Court’s ruling would indeed demonstrate respect for the tenets of democracy in the context of the rule of law as professed by Madam Sirleaf and her administration.
Since the inception of the Sirleaf regime, the President has always professed respect for the rule of law, and if she should be taken seriously in this respect, Madam Sirleaf’s option in dealing with the Tah suspension issue should not undermine the Constitution; it should rather be a decisive action that would portray her and the government good in respect of protecting and defending the constitution, which of course is imbedded in her oath of office. Such action expected of the Madam is clearly to either remove her Justice Minister from office by appointment of acting or proper Minister of Justice pending the service of the contempt punishment meted out to Madam Tah by the high court. As the matter of fact, Minister Tah should not be made indispensable as attorney general, the forerunner of justice in the country, at the expense of the Constitution.
The Issue
It is recalled that sometime last year, former Agriculture Minister Chris Toe proceeded to the Civil Law Court and Complained the Front PageAfrica Newspaper through its Publisher Rodney Sieh for running what in essence of the complaint was an irking story the paper. The story was said to be culled from official audit report by the General Audit Commission (GAC). The report alleged to some extent in part or in whole that the Agriculture Ministry did not account for some money spent from public coffers to fight army worms that were destroying crops in Bong County. Toe contended that the FrontpageAfrica story was libelous and had caused him damage in the tone of US$1.5 which he went to claim; and upon hearing, the Court awarded Mr. Toe the case. Report said Rodney’s lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court but did not end the appeal process.
What might have happened to derive a reprimand by the Supreme Court is still seem to be a myth, but Sieh was said to have been remanded to prison in the wake of the claimed by former Agriculture Minister Toe. When public sentiments was built as the Sieh issue became a media agenda, the FrontPageAfrica’s managing editor of illness; he was taken to the JFK Medical Center where he was taking treatment when Justice Minister Tah granted him a “Compassionate Release” based on request of Sieh’s lawyers, claiming that it was part of her constitutional duties under section 34.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The Attorney General did not mention whether or not the power of her office to grant “Compassionate Leave” applies in a situation where the Supreme Court has jailed someone for contempt, which was apparently in the case of Rodney Sieh. As I followed the issue, I read views of some legal minds saying Sieh's release did not accord with Liberian law, although the Minister of Justice said she had invoked the criminal procedure law to temporally release Mr. Sieh from the Monrovia Central Prison on Compassionate ground. The issue now becomes whether or not the Justice Minister has the right to grant the compassionate leave in the circumstances that had prevailed in the Rodney Sieh Case; whether or not Sieh was jailed for contempt or for Toe’s damage claim and whether or not the Supreme Court was in error in its ruling against Minister Tah.
The Supreme Court Ruling
So Mr. Sieh was released from the Monrovia Central Prison under a clause of the Criminal Procedural Law Section 34.20 in the Liberia Code of Law Revise (LCLR) Volume I. This law states inter alia that “…the Attorney General shall formulate rules or regulations governing compassionate leave from institutions and in accordance with such rules and regulations, may grant any prisoner to leave his institution for short periods of time, either by himself or in the custody of an officer, to visit a close relative who is seriously ill, to attend the funeral of a close relative, to return to his home during what appears to be his own illness or to return home for compelling reasons which strongly appeal to compassion.” But the Supreme Court claimed that this clause does not apply in the Sieh situation. No! The court says it cannot be reason why Mr. Sieh was release since the FrontPage Africa boss was jailed on the orders of the Supreme Court for his failure to exhaust an appeal process started by his legal counsels in his behalf.
Notwithstanding, Sieh, represented by his legal counsels Beyan D. Howard and Fonati Koffa, was released by the Minister of Justice Christiana Tah through application of the “Compassionate Leave” law. Please I should not be misunderstood in the presentation of this public opinion of mine, for my argument is not to say it was wrong to release sieh; I am saying this right to freedom should have been rightly channeled to avoid the present hullabaloo, and since the high court has problem and meted out punishment to a high profile official, the President should now act decisively not to undermine the constitution of Liberia.
In a communication from the Supreme Court quoted in the media, the high court sitting in its October Term commanded its marshal to invite Justice Minister Tah (on Wednesday, October 16 at 9: 00 a.m.) to show reason why she should not be held in contempt. The Court, the final arbiter for justice in the land, described as unlawful the release of Mr. Sieh having served imprisonment for over one month and two weeks with his rights to seek medical treatment respected from time to time while in prison, according to reports.
The Constitution and Executive Reluctance
Sieh was let out by the Justice Minister reason that led to her suspension by the Supreme Court while the court’s action carried with it the authority of the Constitution. This makes the reluctance by the Office of the President to suspend the Justice Minister or remove her from office in compliant with the high court’s ruling worrisome. Recently, the President was quoted in press release that she has taken note of Justice Minister Tah’s suspension by the high court stopping the Attorney General from practicing law, and has commenced consultations for optional action. Consultation for optional action? I must restate that this is just meant to undermine the Constitution, for any such consultation that precludes concrete action replacing the suspended official contravenes the Constitution which provides for coordination in the exercise of their separation of powers.
Coordination in this context should not be seen as reason for the Supreme Court to ask for the President’s permission before ruling on judicial or constitutional matters since that would warrant interference with the dispensation of justice. In Article III of the 1986 Constitution on which Liberia presently exercises her sovereignty, it is provided that “…. Consistent with the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances, no person holding office in one of the branches shall hold office in or exercise any of the powers assigned to either of the other two branches except as otherwise provided in this Constitution; and no person holding office in one of the said branches shall serve on any autonomous public agency.”
In this case, the objective of the President’s consultation is incomprehensible, since the court’s judgment was clear and comprehensible in the absence of theoretical legal knowledge of its implications. For me, I don’t understand what the President meant by wanting implication of the ruling against the Justice Minister for which she said she was consulting before action. This executive position of course contravenes Article 65 of the Constitution which says, “Judgments of the Supreme Court shall be final and binding and shall not be subject to appeal or review by any other branch of Government. Nothing in this Article shall prohibit administrative consideration of the Justifiable matter prior to review by a court of competent jurisdiction….”
Besides Article 65, Article 66 of the same Constitution states that “The Supreme Court shall be final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from courts of record, courts not of record, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or any other authority, both as to law and fact except cases involving ambassadors, ministers, or cases in which a country is a party. In all such cases, the Supreme Court shall exercise original jurisdiction. The Legislature shall make no law nor create any exceptions as would deprive the Supreme Court of any of the powers granted herein.” So and in view of these citations, who is the lawyer that will advise that the President should act unconstitutionally?
Certainly, the reluctance by the President to remove Minister Tah from office in support of the Supreme Court judgment leaves much to ponder. Maybe the President is saying that the Supreme Court ruling should be given another interpretation by her lawyers, and that her action would be on the basis of the outcome of her consultation, or perhaps she insinuating that the Supreme Court was wrong to have suspended Attorney General and Justice Minister Tah? Does the office of Attorney General and Justice Minister feel adequate to operate without performing its cardinal function as Dean of the Supreme Court Bar? These and many others continue to filter down rational minds in the wake of the reluctance by the President to suspend or remove from office the Attorney General and Justice Minister in adherence to the Supreme Court ruling.
Since the President is concerned with implication of the ruling, the meaning of practice of law comes to the fore, in the face of the Supreme Court’s contention that the Attorney General is suspended from the practice of law for six months. In its most general sense, definition of the clause “practice of law” involves giving legal advice to clients, drafting legal documents (including legislations) for clients, and representing clients in legal negotiations and court proceedings such as lawsuits, and is applied to the professional services of a lawyer or attorney at law, barrister, solicitor, or civil law notary. This infact includes a growing number of legal document assistant services which have traditionally been offered only by lawyers and their employee paralegals. So in the case of the Attorney General who is basically the prime person to play these roles including the drafting of laws amongst others for the state, the suspension means she is stopped for the period of the suspension from doing these legal businesses for the state, especially as Dean for the Supreme Court Bar.
In its opinion and judgment, the Francis Korkpor Bench adjudged: “That the respondents, Counselor Christiana P. Tah, Minister of Justice/Attorney General and Counselor Beyan D. Howard committed contempt against the judiciary. Their actions [to grant "compassionate release" to the FrontPageAfrica’s Rodney Sieh jailed last year in connection with a libel case instituted against him by former Agriculture Minister Chris Toe] were not in consonance with Section 34.20(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law of Liberia.”
The Supreme Court further ruled that, “The actions of the respondents were instead deliberately intended to proceed through the Executive Branch of Government and release a prisoner who had been imprisoned for contempt of court without any reference to the Judiciary, in utter violation of the doctrine of separation of powers as enshrined in our constitution. Their actions are therefore punishable as such.” The Court further ruled that “For her role in releasing Rodney D. Sieh from prison as well as her persistent affront to this court demonstrated in her refusal to reverse the action which formed the basis for the contempt proceedings, notwithstanding her Counsel’s promise to return Rodney D. Sieh to prison, co-respondent Christiana P. Tah, Minister of Justice/Attorney General, is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the Republic of Liberia directly or indirectly for the period of six(6) months; while, for his role played in the release of Rodney D. Sieh from prison ….”
Why Consultation?
So what is incomprehensible that the President is holding consultation about? Who are the eminent lawyers and legal professionals [former Chief Justices and former Associate Justices of the Supreme Court] that will make President Sirleaf to fully comprehend the implications of the Court’s decision other than what is laid down in its findings? Certainly, it is quite interesting that the President who respects the rule of law will want to comprehend implications of a Supreme Court ruling before acting on it.
I wonder how the President thinks the ruling has abrogated the powers of her office as President of Liberia for which her action should be undermining the organic law of the State. What the President’s office is expected to do, if she wants to retain the services of Cllr. Christiana Tah in her government as justice minister, is to temporarily appoint an acting Minister of Justice pending expiration of the six months timeline of the Supreme Court ruling, since this judgment cannot be reversed in a manner reminiscent of extending executive clemency. It also means after six month, she may reinstate her. But as it is, it would appear that the President is being carried away by sentiments of friendship, which is not a good thing for this fledgling democracy.
If Ellen or her legal team knows that the Supreme Court has no business for suspending the Attorney General, it should be made clear at once, although that will change nothing to rescue Minister Tah since the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of justice, and it has said that the channel used by Minister Tah in granting the Compassionate Leave is not in line 34.20 of 1LCLR.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court would not certainly hear a case to derive the punitive measure if it has no real issue within the Justice Minister. I certainly think all of the justices wouldn’t find reason of suspending the Attorney General without any misconduct. Do they have malice against her? If the answer is a yes, then why? Whether or not there is malice, the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court given the constitutional authority to give final definition to constitutional and law issues. Therefore, the failure by the President to comply with the high court’s decision does nothing less than openly defying the authority of the Constitution of the land as inherent in the Supreme Court’s establishment. In my opinion, two wrongs cannot amount to a right. If in fact the Supreme Court was in error by the decision, the prudent thing to do is to either remove Madam Tah from office to avoid the looming constitutional crisis in sight or dialogue with the Supreme Court in the spirit of the coordination attending doctrine of separation of powers and functions, so that the high court may see reason of purging Cllr. Tah the suspension which is a punitive measure for contempt of the Supreme Court.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment