PHOTO: L-R, Cllr. Sannoh and Judge Morgan
By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia- In the petition for Accountant case hearing before the full Bench of the Supreme Court, one of the Amici Curie (friends of the Court), Cllr. Benedict Sannoh has said that the Chief Judge of the Commercial Court at the Temple of Justice ‘was in total error’ to unfreeze the US$1.3 account of Monrovia Oil Trading Company (MOTC) only without the involvement of Mr. Amos Brosius of Ducor Petroleum Company.
The Amici Curie is appointed by the Chief Justice. And Judge Eva Mappy Morgan was recently indicted by the Judicial Inquiry Committee (JIC) of acting unethically by unilaterally unfreezing the bank account in question.
During his argument at the Supreme Court on June 23, 2021, Cllr. Sannoh, who is also former Liberian Attorney General and Minister of Justice, said after the account was frozen, the lawyer representing MOTC, Cllr. Negbalee Warner called Judge Morgan to request her to lift the freezing order because he has satisfied what the court wanted and Judge Morgan unilaterally unfroze the account without the other party.
Cllr. Sannoh during argument raised several issues, but key among was whether or not Judge Morgan violated Judicial Canon #10 and whether or not the JIC’s recommendation satisfied the Supreme Court?
To answer the first issue, Cllr. Sannoh said Judge Morgan by herself to hear the case alone without the two other judges was in violation of Judicial Canon 24 and not Canon 10 adding that regarded the outcome of case, the Judiciary is the Victim which is not healthy.
The former Justice Minister told the Supreme Court Bench that even though Judge Morgan was in error by lifting the freeze on the account without the other party, Judges should not be sanctioned for every mistake they make.
Cllr. Sannoh maintained that Judge Morgan violated Judicial Canon 24 which states:
Judicial Canon Twenty-Four. EXP ARTE COMMUNICATIONS
A judge should not permit private interviews, arguments or communications designed to influence his judicial action, where interests to be affected thereby are not represented before him, except in cases where provision is made by law for ex parte application.
The Friend of the Court argued that Judge Morgan didn’t have the authority to unilaterally unfreeze the account to MOTC without the other party, adding that due process was never accorded to Mr. Amos Brosius and her decision to freeze the account was a private communication.
The JIC recommendation said Judge Morgan’s conduct was in violation of Judicial Canon 10 which states
Judicial Canon Ten. ESSENTIAL CONDUCT OF A JUDGE
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.
But Cllr. Sannoh said Judge Morgan should have rather issued a notice of assignment on Mr. Brosius lawyer for hearings before lifting the account order, adding that Judges Morgan didn’t authorize any withdrawal of monies from the LBDI account for her personal use.
He indicated that the JIC’s recommendation is not consistent with law, narrating that even though Judges Morgan conduct is being investigated but it border around all those lawyers involved in the matter.
Another Amici Curie, Cllr. Jonathan Massaquio raised three issues and key among them was: whether or not can a Presiding Chief Judge a make a deposition of a matter under strange rule?
Cllr. Massaquoi answered in the affirmative (yes), because it involves Judicial misconduct that is defined in their jurisdiction and other Jurisdiction adding that the Judge ought to know his/her jurisdiction before proceeding in a matter.
The second issue, he raised was whether or not a judge can preside over a case alone? The Act establishing the Commercial Court says where one of the judges are I’ll or unable to perform, the Chief Judge must write the Chief Justice, who will appoint a judge from a specialized court to complete the three penal judges.
Cllr. Massaquio said the injury that the Chief Commercial Court caused is the ordering of the withdrawal of 1.3 m, adding that the Judge Morgan single handedly the matter without the other party which left fairness and accountability out.
He recommended that members of the Supreme Court initiate impeachment of Judge Morgan for ethical transgression and misconduct.
Cllr. Massaquoi has also recommended that Cllr. Negbalee Warner and Cllr. Bemah Lassana be forwarded to the Grievance and Ethics Commission for investigation.
Another Amici Curie, Cllr. Milton Taylor and Cllr. Alfred Sayeh, who filed a joint brief, said that all the witnesses who appeared before the JIC didn’t testify that Judge Morgan took money and Judge Morgan did nothing wrong for which she should be impeached.
Cllr. Taylor indicated that if Judge Morgan didn’t have Jurisdiction over the matter, it was a judicial Action and not ethical transgression.
He therefore said that the JIC failed to establish any wrong against Judge Morgan and prayed the high Court for the JIC recommendation or report be set aside and Judge Morgan right should be restored and grant unto all other rights that is just and equitable.
For her part, one of the lawyers representing Judge Morgan, Cllr. Bonda Elliott argued before the Supreme Court that they have reviewed the case files and their investigation highlights few issues.
One of them is: whether or not Judge Morgan violated Chapter 5 of the act that established the Commercial Court? According to her, Mr. Brosius admitted that MOTC and Mr. Brosius had agreed to establish Ducor Petroleum for the sole purpose of retail petroleum sale.
The tough-talking female lawyer questioned the Supreme Court during the argument: what ethical violation that affected Mr. Brosius?
Cllr. Elliott said there was no agreement to freeze the account but rather it was a restriction. She added that the purpose of the restriction was satisfied by MOTC therefore, when MOTC lawyer Cllr. Warner called Judge Morgan that he met the requirements set forth by the Court over the seven checks, he asked Judge Morgan to remove the restriction, something she did.
Judge Morgan’s lawyer further argued that assuming that Judge Morgan didn’t have jurisdiction over the matter, but it is not ethical violation and JIC was completely wrong for finding Judge Morgan guilty when she has committed any ethical transgression.
Cllr. Elliott therefore prayed to reverse the JIC report and recommendation and set her client free from said matter.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Liberia has reserved ruling into the matter.
Judge Morgan was represented by a team of lawyers including Cllr. J. Moses Peagar, Cllr. Joyce Reeves Woods, Cllr. Bemah Lassana and Cllr. Bonda Elliott.
While, the Amici Curie include Cllr. Benedict Sannoh, Cllr. Jonathan Massaquio, Milton Taylor and Cllr. Alfred Sayeh.