FLASHBACK: NEC Chair Davidetta Browne Lansanah and one of her lawyers on the court grounds
By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE- Monrovia- Criminal Court “C” presided over by it assigned Judge Ciapha T. Carey reserved into ruling into a motion filed by the National Elections Commission Chairperson, Davidetta Browne Lansanah after a heated argument by both state and defense lawyers.
Defendant Browne-Lansanah filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against her on March 8,2022 and said motion was argued in March 16,2022.
Last December, the NEC boss was indicted and a writ of arrest was issued on Thursday December 23,2021 for multiple charges ranging predicate offense of money laundering, insider trading, manipulation, conflict of interest and violation of the code of conduct, among other things.
Prior to the writ of arrest, an Indictment was drawn against her the Ministry of Justice and an investigation conducted by the LACC linking her to corruption in the just ended by elections in four counties in which she is alleged to approved a deal with a company owned by her two brothers to rent face recognition scanners for NEC totally over US$180,000.
On March 8,2022, NEC’s head Browne-Lansanah filed an eight counts motion to dismiss the indictment against her on ground that she was charged and indicted for the alleged crime of insider trading in violation of Part ii, section 2.2 (Acts of corruption) of the Act of 2008.
The Act establishing the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission in section 2.2 says that acts of corruption, bribery, embezzlement, extortion, fraud, influence peddling, insider trading, misuse of entrusted public property and vested authority and any economic and financial crimes which are now provided for under the Penal code of Liberia or May hereafter be defined and enacted.
Judge Carey reserved the ruling her motion on Wednesday, March 16,2022,
During the argument, one of state prosecutors Cllr. Bobby W. Livingstone requested to quash, deny, dismiss and throw the motion through the window of the court as if it wasn’t filed and allow the case to commence for trial.
Cllr. Livingstone further argued that the NEC boss motion should be dismiss into its entirety because the statute creating Criminal Court C concurred with this jurisdiction for any theft related cases.
As for the defense lawyers headed by Cllr. Wilfred Sayeh, they argued that the motion to dismiss should be dismissed because there is office of the Omsbudman to investigate those charges levied against his client.
State prosecutors relied on section 16.7 of the Criminal procedure law which provides that.
16.7. Motion to dismiss raising defenses and objections before trial.
1.Defenses and objections which may be raised.
Any defense or objection which is capable of determination without trial of the general issue may be raised before trial by motion to dismiss the indictment.
2.Defenses and objections which must be raised.
Defenses and objections based on defects in the institution of the prosecution or in the indictment other than that it fails to shown jurisdiction in the court over the subject matter or to charge an offense, may be raised only by motion before trial to dismiss. The motion shall include all such defenses and objections then available to the defendant. Failure to present any such defense or objection as herein provided constitutes a waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver. Lack of jurisdiction to try the offense or the failure of the indictment or information to charge an offense shall be noticed by the court at any stage of the proceeding.
Omsbudman an official appointed to investigate individuals’ complaints against maladministration, especially that of public authorities.
He argued that even though his client admitted of committing the crimes insider trading and predicted money laundering but there is law to hold his client liable because there is Omsbudman which responsible to indict people of such nature and send to court.
Cllr. Sayeh said in this case, the code of conduct being violated by the NEC boss cannot hold her because there is no Omsbudman office which Criminal Court C lacks jurisdiction to preside over such matter.
The defense lawyer added that insider trading has been defined under our law neither it has punishment under any of our statute.
He revealed that section 12.2 of the code of conduct provided procedure from which violation of the code of conduct are addressed because the LACC itself violated Part X,B, I and 16 of the code of conduct which talk about itself to investigate the alleged violation of the very code of conduct.
One of defense lawyers Cllr. Sayeh prayed court to dismiss the indictment against his client with prejudice to the state.
Count two said because movant says that she was also charged and indicted for violation of the Code of conduct (conflict of interest; relative use of office for private interest and disclosure of interest ) which are violations of section 1,3.21, 9.6 and 9.11 of a National code of conduct for all public officials and employees of the government of the Republic of Liberia approved March 31st 2014 and printed into hand Bill on June 26th 2014.
Because movant further says that part Xii of the code of conduct provides: the creation of the office of Omsbudman, subsection 12.1 provides the office of an Omsbudman is hereby established as an independent autonomous body which shall be responsible for the enforcement, oversight, monitoring and evaluation of the adherence to the code of conduct.
Count five of movant motion revealed that section 12.2 of Part XII of the code of conduct provides the office of the Omsbudman shall receive and investigate all complaints in respect to the adherence of the code of conduct. In the case where there is a determination of guilt and violation of the code of conduct by private and public officials and employees of government, said violation shall be submitted by the Omsbudman to the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission or other relevant agencies of government. The office of the Omsbudman shall be responsible to collaborate with the three branches of government and civil society organizations in order to develop regulations for the code of conduct.
Movant in her motion said criminal Court C lacks jurisdiction of her person and the thing (violation of the code of conduct) involved in this action; section 11.2(1)(b) and because of the violation of Party XII section 12.2 of the Code of Conduct by the respondent(prosecution)
Also the code of conduct provides for its own disciplinary process in the event there is an infringement/breach of the code in Party XIV section 14.1; also because movant says that sanctions for any breach of the code of conduct is provided for in Part XV section 15.1 of the code of conduct hence this court has no jurisdiction of the person and thing involved in the action. Therefore, the indictment should and must be dismissed in keeping with law.
Because movant says that the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission violated Part XVI section 16.1 when it took upon itself to accept a complaint of an alleged violation of the code of conduct, conduct an investigation and submitted its alleged illegal investigation findings and conclusion to the Ministry of Justice for prosecution because of this violation of the code of conduct by the LACC, the indictment should and must be dismissed.
Wherefore and in view of the foregoing, movant says that your Honor should rule as follows to writ:
That this court lacks jurisdiction of her person and the thing (violation of the code of conduct) involved in this action;(section 11.2(1)(b) and because of the violation of Part XII section 12.2 of the code of conduct by the respondent.
The LACC violated PartXII section 16.1 when it took upon itself to accept a complaint of an alleged violation of the code of conduct, conduct an investigation and submitted its illegal investigation findings and conclusion to the Ministry of justice for prosecution.
That the alleged crime of insider trading has not been enacted into law and has not been penalized under out statutory laws and therefore movant cannot and should be made to plead to the alleged crime of insider trading and grant unto movant any all further relief your Honor will deem just, illegal and equitable in such cases.