PHOTO: Embattled CPP former leader Alex Cummings
By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia- The political leader of the opposition Alternative National Congress (ANC), Alexander Cummings will now have to produce the original CPP Framework Document, as being demanded by lawyers representing Benoni Urey’s All Liberian Party in the allegedly forgery and criminal conspiracy case.
As Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com reports, Criminal Court “A” at the Temple of Justice presided over by resident circuit Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie today, Thursday affirmed and confirmed Magistrate Jomah Jallah’s January 26, 2022 ruling in Subpoena Dues Tecum motion filed by state lawyers compelling the ANC political leader to bring the original copy of the CPP’s framework document.
Cummings previously headed the now serious fractured four-party opposition CPP, which originally included the Urey’s ALP, former Vice President Joseph Boakai’s former ruling Unity Party, the ANC and Senator Nyonblee Karnga-Lawrence’ Liberty Party.
But the defense took exception and took the magistrate in a summary proceeding at Criminal Court A.
After said ruling which compelled the ANC political leader and Senator Daniel Nathan and Aloysius Toe to produce the original copy of the CPP framework document within 72hrs but Mr. Cummings said the order from the compelling him to produce the original copy of the CPP framework was self-incrimination which violates his rights in line with Article 21(h).
The 72 hours according to Judge Willie begins today February 10, 2022.
In order to rule into the matter, the judge raised the following legal points.
Whether or not the magistrate ruling to have ordered the petitioners/ defendants to produce the original framework document of the CPP is self-incriminating?
Before answering said question, it is important to summarize the facts as presented to us in the petition and during arguments. According to count one of the petitioner’s petition, it states that CPP is a collaboration of four registered political parties duly operating under the laws of the Republic of Liberia namely, Unity party, Alternative National Congress, All Liberian Party and Liberty Party.
Under the 1986 constitution of Liberia, Article 78, it states that unless the context otherwise requires an association means a body of person, corporate or other which acts together for a common purpose and includes a group of people organized for ethic, social, cultural, occupational or religious objectives; a political party shall be an association with membership of not less that five hundred qualified voters in each of at least six counties whose activities include canvassing for votes on any public issue or in support of a candidate for elective public office.
Hence, in consideration of count one of the petitioners, petition as stated above and the provision of Article 78 of the 1986 constitution, the CPP is an association and thus a public entity.
According the respondent/prosecution, the frame work document being requested by them was signed during the chairmanship of Mr.Alexander B. Cummings and the other defendants serving as the secretariat of the CPP meaning that, they were agents or officers of the CPP as an association of Political Parties and were obligated to provide the Original signed copy to the other parties of the collaboration but instead refused which one of the constituent parties is now claiming to be forged.
Under the criminal procedure law, section 21.3 titled self incrimination privilege and exception, it states that: every natural person has a privilege to refused to disclose in any action or proceedings, civil, criminal, quasi-criminal or administrative or to a public official of the Republic or any government agency or division thereof, any matter that May incriminate him subject to the following:
A public official or any person who engages in any occupation, profession or calling does not have the privilege to refused to disclose any matter which the statutes or regulations governing the office, activity, occupation, profession or calling require him to record or report or disclose concerning it.
A person who is an officer, agent or employee of a corporation or other association, does not have the privilege to refuse to disclose any matter which the statutes or regulations governing the corporation or association or the conduct of its business requires him to record or report or disclose.
Consequently, the petitioners/Defendants being officers or agents of the CPP should have provided the Original copy of the framework document to the other collaborating Political Parties but rather refused, neglected and rejected to do same even up to the filing of the suit which the respondents/ prosecution claimed is forged and all efforts made for the petitioners/defendants to give them the original copy failed. Therefore, the mandate given by the magistrate court ordering the petitioners/ defendants to produce the original copy of the CPP framework document is not in their private/individual capacities but rather as officers /agents of the CPP when the framework document was signed on May 19,2020, which they refused to produce ever since when it was signed.
Whether or not the ruling of the magistrate is synonymous to producing evidence against the petitioners/defendants which is violative of their fundamental rights?
The court again revert to the fact as presented to it by the parties. According to the respondent/prosecution, they and the petitioners/defendants are members of the Collaborating Political Parties (CPP) who all signed the rules and regulations to operate the collaboration which document is titled Framework document.
The respondent/ prosecution further argued that when the framework document was signed, all five copies were turned over to the petitioners/ defendants for notarization but since then, the petitioners/ defendants whom at the time headed a rotational leadership of the collaboration but refused, neglected to provide them copies of the framework document that was signed on May 19,2020 even up to the filing of its suit.
Respondent/prosecution further averred that certain sections of the framework document as hereinabove stated that were recommended in the amended framework document, prepared and produced constituent political parties as required before filing we’re unilaterally included or cut and paste in the purported CPP framework document filed by the petitioners/ defendants with the National Elections Commission NEC and without the expressed knowledge of participation and approval of the respondents/prosecution.
The petitioners/defendants on the hand agreed that they are all members of the collaborating political parties and did sign the Framework document on May 19,2020, but what they do not deny or confirm is whether or not they provided the original copies constituent political parties when the documents were notarized before filing same with the National Elections Commission and also whether the recommended amended portion by the lawyers were ever deliberated upon and ratified by them before submitting same to the NEC.
They only argument the petitioners/ defendants have provided is that they cannot be mandated by the respondent/ prosecution through the court to provide this original framework document as doing so is equivalent to producing evidence themselves, which is in violation of their fundamental rights as provided for under Article 21(h) of the 1986 Liberia constitution.
There is maxim in law which states that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. Applying this maxim to the case at bar and the rotational behind the magistrate ruling is that, the parties agreed that all members of the Collaborating Political Parties signed the rules and regulations governing the collaboration, titled framework document on May 19,2020, the respondents/ prosecution asserts that since they signed five copies of the said framework document and turned them over to the petitioners who were then serving as the rotational heads of the CPP to notarize same, the petitioners/ defendants have refused, neglected and rejected to provide them copies since then.
It is this original framework document, which they are entitled to as matter of their fundamental rights to prove their case. Therefore, their request and the mandate from the magistrate ruling are not and cannot be construed as producing evidence against themselves because, the CPP is not the private organization of the petitioners/defendants.
It is an association of Political parties; thus a public entity as enshrined in Article 78 of the 1986 constitution and further expanded upon in the Criminal procedural law section 21.3(a)(b).
In view therefore, the ruling of the Stipendiary Magistrate ordering the petitioners/defendants to produce the original copy of the CPP framework document, which was signed on May 19, 2020, within 72 hours however begins immediately after this ruling and ends on Tuesday, February 15,2022. The clerk of this court is hereby ordered to write the magistrate to resume jurisdiction of this case and act accordingly.