FLASHBACK: Former Chief Justice Gloria Musu Scott at the early stage of her trial
By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia- Criminal Court “A” presided over by its Resident Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie today, Wednesday October 25,2023 issued a writ of subpoena on authorities of the Liberia Medical and Dental Council regarding conflicting death certificates.
The medical Council officials are to appear on Thursday October 26,2023 to explain the processes involved in the issuance of death certificates.
According to www.legaldictionary.net, “subpoena is a legal notice that requires a person to appear in court as a witness, or requests that person to present documents related to a court case.”
In June this year, the former Liberian Supreme Court Chief Justice were briefly released from Police custody along with three members of her household who were at her residence when young Charloe Musu was allegedly brutally murdered last February, after the Criminal Court issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Court Releases Ex-Chief Justice Gloria Scott, But Police Press Criminal Charges Against Her, 3 Others – News Public Trust
Judge Willie’s decision to issue a writ of subpoena on the Liberia Medical and Dental Council came at a result of a conflicting death certificate of former Liberia Chief Justice Cllr. Gloria Musu Scott daughter who was gruesomely murdered in February this year at their Brewerville residence outside Monrovia.
Before issuing the subpoena, state prosecutors made an application for one of their witnesses in person of a Physician Assistant who attended to Charloe Musu unconscious at the redemption hospital in New Kru Town on February 22, 2023.
The Court says after listening to the arguments of the parties, it has reserved ruling and also order the Clerk to subpoena the authority of the Liberia Medical and Dental Association/Council to appear in this Court to provide information on this.
The processes as it relates to issuing of Death Certificate from the hospital wherein that deceased person was seen by a medical personnel that is not a Medical Doctor; The communication will be issued out of this Court today and one of the authorities of the Liberia Medical and Dental Association/Council will appear in this Court on Tomorrow, Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 10:30am. All parties being present, today’s minutes serves as Notice of Assignment.
One of the Prosecution Lawyers, Cllr. Adolphus Karnuah told the Court that Prosecution Subpoenaed Witness in person of the Medical Doctor that pronounced Charloe Musu’s dead is within the bailiwick of this Court.
However, this Witness had earlier indicated to Prosecution that the physician assistant that works under him is the one that saw the victim and what he did essentially was that he signed the death certificate because such certificate cannot be signed by someone who is not a Medical Doctor.
Cllr. Karnuah said consequently, the physician assistant in question is on his way to this Honorable Court so as to be qualified, sworn and testified for and on behalf of the Prosecution; thereafter, the Medical Doctor will then take the stand to confirm the signature on the death certificate.
DETAILS OF THE WRIT OF SUBPOENA BELOW:
WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, Prosecution most respectfully requests Your Honor to kindly permit/allow a respite of about 30 to 45 minutes so as to afford the opportunity for the physician assistant mentioned supra to be present in the bailiwick of this Court.
Counsel says that this request or application is not made in bad fate and is henceforth not intended to delay these proceedings unnecessarily.
Additionally, it has been brought to the attention of the Prosecution that the Medical Doctor that is supposed to appear before this court to take the witness stand cannot communicate fluently in English as he is a French Speaking professional.
Prosecution therefore requests Your Honor and this Honorable Court to contact the Foreign Ministry for an interpreter to be sent to this Honorable Court to aid in the taking of the testimony of the Medical Doctor, since in fact and indeed he does not speak English satisfactorily.
WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this application made in good fate and is permissible under our law and as such this application is no way intended to baffle these proceedings.
The Defense headed by Cllr. Amara Sheriff in resisting to the application made by the Prosecution says the following, to wit: 1. That the application is made in bad fate and therefore same should be denied, suamoto. 2. The Defense says that as to the application that the Medical Doctor that signed the Death Certificate did not attend to the deceased but rather it was the physician assistant, the Defense says that the Medical Certification of cause of death issued by the National Public Health Service, Redemption Hospital averse as follows:
“I Dr. Guilavagui Mamady hereby certify that I have medically attended to the above deceased and that the particulars and the cause of death are true to the best of my knowledge and belief”.
Cllr. Sheriff added that this Certificate that says he attended to the deceased and the Prosecution averment that he never attended to the deceased are intra-contradictory and therefore the application must be denied and dismissed.
If the Doctor as to the words of Prosecution that did not attend to the deceased but issued a 20TH DAY OPENING CHAMBER SESSION SHEET 3 AUGUST A.D. 2023 TERM WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2023 Certification that he was the one that attended to the deceased is clearly intended to mislead the trial jurors and this Honorable Court; hence, the application should be denied.
Defense says that it is a principal in Medical Practice that the Medical Doctor or a physician that attended to a person observing the function of the brain, the heartbeat will be the one to sign the cause of death of that person and the Doctor who did not attend to the deceased but issued a certificate that he attended to the deceased cannot be the one to testify before this Court; hence, the application should be denied and dismissed.
And therefore, this Doctor must be dispensed with for misleading the facts finders and the Court and must be dispensed with as a matter of law.
Moreover, the purported attended physician who said to have attended to the deceased contrary to the records available to this Court cannot be the one to testify to same since there are records to the contrary.
Additionally, the list of witnesses submitted to the Defense Team, the purported physician assistant whose name is not named in Prosecution application, same must be denied and quashed and refused.
The law says that the only witness that will testify is the witness that the Prosecution did not know nor have reason to have known and had have reason to never would have known up to the time of trial is that witness that will come and testify not someone in their full knowledge to testify that they attend to the deceased.
WHEREFORE, the Defense most respectfully requests Your Honor to deny and dismiss the application made by Prosecution for the reasons stated above, principally for Dr. Mamady to have mislead the fact finders that he attended to the deceased when the Prosecution’s lawyer says he did not but rather the purported physician assistant whose name is not named to the Defense Team and grant our resistance and any other relief that in the eyes of compelling justice will obtain in this case. And submits.
THE COURT: When this case was called this morning, Wednesday, October 25, 2023 and while the parties were making representations, one of counsels for the Prosecution prayed for a submission to the Court, which submission was subsequently granted.
During his submission, Prosecution counsel told the Court that based on the subpoenaed ad testfificandum prayed for during the last sitting which was subsequently issued by this Court, the Medical Doctor in person of Dr. Guilavagui Mamady is in the vicinity of the Court; however, he was not personally the one who attended to the deceased rather it was his Physician Assistant and therefore this Court should grant the Physician Assistant between 30 to 45 minutes to allow by the Court to testify to the Medical Records of the deceased.
Prosecution further stated that he Dr. Mamady had to sign the Death Certificate because a Physician Assistant who is not a Medical Doctor cannot sign a death certificate and so he had to sign the Death Certificate. Prosecution further told the Court that Dr. Mamady cannot communicate in English fluently and therefore for he to attest or confirm or affirm any comments especially as it relates to the signing of the Death Certificate, he is praying this Court to write the Ministry of Foreign 20TH DAY OPENING CHAMBER SESSION SHEET 4 AUGUST A.D. 2023 TERM WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2023 Affairs to provide this Court with an interpreter who is fluent in the French language for the said purpose.
In resisting to that submission, Defense Counsel told the Court to deny the entire application as made by the Prosecution because, the Death Certificate as provided by Dr. Mamady says that he is the one who have medically attended to the deceased and therefore, he cannot come and say that he did not attend or he did not see the deceased although this is written also on the Death Certificate.
Defense Counsel further argued that medically or professionally it is only a Medical Doctor who has seen a victim who later died that can sign the Death Certificate and further went on to say that it has to be approved by the Medical Director of the Institution, Defense Counsel also argued that the Physician Assistant cannot in fact testify in these proceedings because the name of that physician assistant is not in the list of witnesses provided to them; and therefore, in view of these foregoing circumstances, the Court should deny both the Medical Doctor and the Physician Assistant because the application made by the Prosecution and the content of the Death Certificate contradict each other..