After Government Lawyers’ Petition

By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com

The Supreme Court of Liberia Chambers Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay has paused the corruption case against former Liberia Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah and four other officials of the former CDC government.

The Supreme Court paused hearing which should have begun on Wednesday December 4,2024, following a petition filed by government lawyers.

It reads, by directive of his Honor Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, Associate Justice presiding in Chambers you are hereby cited to a conference with his Honor on Tuesday December 10,2024, at hour of 10:00 am in connection with the above captioned case.

Meanwhile, you are hereby ordered to stay all further proceedings and or actions in this matter pending outcome of the conference.

However, Samuel D. Tweah and others accused were expected to be arraigned in open court today December 4,2024, when state prosecutors ran to the Supreme Court on December 3,2024 to pray for the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

In a nine counts petition writ of certiorari

filed by government lawyers against former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah and Judge A. Blamo Dixon states that first respondent (Judge Blamo Dixon) manifested bias when he granted bail to second respondent (Samuel D. Tweah) on personal recognizance although defendant Tweah didn’t make an application thereof and Tweah surety agreed, it was evident that the Criminal appearance bonds as filed by the second respondent (Tweah) was defective and did not meet the requirement of law.

A writ of certiorari is a legal document that allows a higher court to review a lower court’s decision.

According to the court records, the second respondent (Tweah ) are indictees accused of the commission of the crimes of Economic sabotage, misuse of public money and or records, illegal disbursement of public money, theft of property, criminal facilitation and criminal conspiracy by the republic of Liberia through the Ministry of Justice.

Count three of the prosecution’s petition states that second respondent (Tweah) individually filed various bonds using properties that did not meet the statutory requirements. Petitioner, in keeping with law, filed exception to the validity of each of the various property bonds that were filed by the second respondent/ defendant.

That on the schedule day for the hearing of the justification of the bonds filed for and on behalf of the second respondent/ defendant (Tweah) after representation of the parties were announced, second respondent surety was sworn and put on the witness stand where he testified on direct examination that the properties he proffered into bonds for the Movants/ defendants were given to him by the owners of said properties to apply them for the purpose of bond as he may deem fit, as has applied for the surety for the second respondent/ defendant. He testified further that the monetary value as inscribed in the various title deeds of the proffered bonds were genuine and authentic in fact and law; emphasizing that the government of Liberia was aware of their existence by means of the probation registration and tax payments done for the properties to LRA.

Court records further avers that notwithstanding, the surety confirming that two of the properties used as bond has one and the same property identification number (an anomaly) and that the properties were tax delinquent or were indebted to the government of Liberia, thereby  creating tax-lien on the bonds raised by petitioner which became glaring and conspicuous; and thereupon the bond was rendered unworthy to stand as surety in these criminal proceedings bias and ground for petitioner’s petition for the issuance of the writ of certiorari.

That after petitioner’s cross examination of the second respondent’s (Tweah)surety, first respondent (Judge Dixon) of his own accord, ordered the clerk of court to read in open court, a communication from LRA that was issued as a result of petitioner’s request for LRA to verify the surety’s tax payment for the properties proffered as bond for second respondents/ defendants.

After the reading, first respondent ( judge Dixon) used the same letter to cross the surety as to the validity of the asserted qualms raised in said letter to which the surety argued of not been served with the letter notwithstanding, the service of said letter on second respondent/ defendant’s counsels on which basis Movants/ defendants moved the moved the court to justify the bond without care about the tax-lien on the properties as detailed in LRA communication.

First respondent judge Dixon without regards to his duty of cool neutrality as referee, granted second respondent’s motion to justify amidst a litany of defects on the individual and collective bonds of second respondents-another factual and legal reason for this petition for the writ of certiorari to be issued against first and second respondents in the name of justice and fair play.

That in the report of the communication of the Liberia Revenue Authority that some of the properties  proffered as bond were not in the system of the government of Liberia, while the rest had very significant unpaid taxes accessed against them, first respondent has a duty to testify to the authenticity and veracity of its communications regarding the properties valuation bond presented by the second respondents, a duty he ignored and failed to exercise.

Following arguments and counter arguments, the judge in person of the first respondent ruled that the Movants/defendants were entitled to bond even though they failed to proffer the proper and adequate bond they failed to make sufficient. This is in complete breach of the law controlling and demanding the proffering of proper and adequate bond for a criminal defendant in this jurisprudence. Hence, petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari for the judicious determination of the case at bar.

Wherefore and in view of the foregoing, petitioner most respectfully prays your Honor and this Honorable court for the issuance of a writ of certiorari against the first respondent for short landing the bond justification process by pre-maturely  accepting second respondent bond to be sufficient in the wake if its insufficiency and grant unto the petitioner all and singular the relief your Honor may deem just, legal and equitable in the premise.