By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia- Criminal Court “C” at the Temple of Justice presided over by its assigned judge Ciapha T. Carey has issued a writ of summon and held in contempt the management of the Guaranty Trust Bank for their failure to appear in court for trial.
Judge Carey handed down the decision on Wednesday, February 23, 2022.
He said that the defendants from the Bank’s management are to be present in court at every stage of the trial proceedings contrary to a submission made their legal team that it was necessary for his clients to be present in court.
According to the Criminal Court “C” judge, the defendants were expected to be present in court on February 24,2022, to show cause why they should not be held in contempt and failure on their part to appear in court based on the writ of summon, they will be arrested.
The defendant Prince Saye, an Executive Director of Guaranty Trust Bank who previously appeared in court on Monday February 21, 2022, prayed for a bench trial.
The entire management of the Guaranty Trust Bank were indicted for the crime theft of property, misapplication of entrusted property and criminal conspiracy.
At the same time, judge Carey has denied a motion filed by defendants lawyers on ground that Criminal Court “C” lack jurisdiction over matter but the defense lawyers excepted to the judge ruling and promised to take advantage of the statute controlling.
on February 21,2022, the lone executive director of Guaranty Trust Bank Prince Saye pleaded not guilty thereby joining issue with the state at Criminal Court “C” in a criminal case brought against his institution by business man George Kailondo for allegedly stealing his money from his account.
On September 17,2021, Criminal Court C dismissed this case without prejudice to the state on ground that the state should have indicted the institution rather than an individual working with the institution but it has been refilled by the state.
At the call of the case, state prosecutors noticed that a recourse to the indictment carried the Caption Guaranty Trust Bank Liberia Limited by and thru its manager Ikenna Anekwa, the deputies, operations manager, executive director, the comptroller and others to be identified realized only one of the directors Prince Saye was present in court.
State prosecutors added that due to the absence of the rest of the defendants, it is difficult for them to proceed in the absence of these key officials or officers named in the indictment.
Therefore, prosecution requested court to hold these officers that is Mr. Ikema Anekwa the deputy, the deputy, the operations manager and the comptroller in contempt for disobeying this court by not being here on today to plead to the indictment and said request is sound in law and requests court as keeping with law.
But the defense lawyers requested court to deny, dismiss and throw out of the window for the following legal and factual reasons to writ:
That the indictment is drawn against Guaranty Trust Bank, a corporation counsels says the named officers are not defendant in the case, they are listed merely for the purpose of service.
Counsel says that it is the general rule that Criminal defendants are required to attend all stages of a Criminal trial. However, the corporate officers are not Criminal defendants such that their presence is required or mandated by law.
Further to counts one and two above, counsel says that the general rule that Criminal defendants must attend all proceedings of a Criminal trial, does not apply to corporation because section 2.4, subsection-4 provides to an exceptions of corporation:
“A corporation may appear by counsel for all purposes,” counsels says that giving this expressed language of the statute, the defendant in these proceedings which is the corporation has the discretion to appear by counsel.
Counsel says that the present of one of the corporation officers was for the purpose of answering to the plea of the indictment, it did not require all of the officers on the bank and does not require the presences of all of the officers during the trial.
The defense lawyer maintained that defendant/ management says that there is no requirement of law and counsel challenges the prosecution to cite the portion of law which mandates all corporate officers of a defendant corporation to be present during a trial.
Counsel also says giving that GT. Bank is the defendant in these proceedings as a corporation, it is not required to be present and hence, its corporate officer cannot be present but assuming without admitting that a corporate criminal defendant is required to be present of a lone corporate officer is sufficient and suffice.
He therefore, prayed court to deny and dismiss prosecution assertions for the appearance of the corporate officers.
Meanwhile, the court headed by its assigned Circuit Court judge Ciapha T. Carey therefore grant prosecution request for the defendants to be present and said that GT. Bank is an institution that can sue and be sued.
According to Judge Carey our law says the defendants shall be present at every stage of a criminal proceeding. The defendants are all corporate officers but they are the defendants in this case, they will speak on behalf of the institution for the crimes charged.
The bank as a building will not speak on behalf of that institution rather it is the corporate officers which by law can sue and be sued. They are required to be in resent at every stage to listen to the evidence that will be produced against them in court which at subsequent time they will have the opportunity to rebut the various statements that will be made by the witnesses by prosecution as they were charged in the indictment.
Furthermore, the court says it will temper justice with mercy and will have this matter reassigned for hearing for the defendants naked in the individual to be present but failure for the defendants to not be present for the next hearing, slated for February 22,2022, the court will be left with no alternative but to hold in contempt as per prosecution request.
Meanwhile, the state is being represented by Cllr. Bobby Livingstone, Cllr. Jallah Barbu and Atty. Alex T. Johnson while the defense lawyers include Cllr. Abraham Sillah, Cllr. Sia Ella Sammy, Cllr. Awa Varkan and Atty. Tye Booker.