By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
Several persons indicted in the more than US$900 million Sable Mining case including Senator H. Varney Sherman and former House Speaker Alex Tyler have told the Criminal Court in Monrovia that they are not guilty of receiving bribes.
Others being tried are E. C. B. Jones, former Deputy Mines Minister; a private fixer Christopher Onanuga, Dr. Richard Tolbert, former head of the National Investment Commission; Andrew Groves, Klaus Piprek; former Ministers of Mines and Energy, Dr. Eugene Shannon, Senator Morris Saytumah and Willie Belleh.
They all pleaded not guilty on Monday, June 17, 2019 in the criminal court ‘C’, after their indictment to them, thereby joining issues with the state to prove their guilt.
With the defendants pleading not guilty to the multiple charges therein and also having joined issues with the Republic of Liberia, the prosecution requested the presiding Judge Peter W. Gbeneweleh to mandate the sheriff of the court to have names of good citizens advanced from the venire of the court so as to be selected as trial of fact in the proceedings.
Representing the legal interest of J. Alex Tyler, Cllr. J. Johnny Momo gave notice to the court that he is exercising his constitutional and statutory right to waive trial by jury. While co-defendant H. Varney Sherman et-al waives their rights for jury trial and also prayed the court to conduct a bench trial in the proceedings.
During the hearing of the case, prosecution for the foruth times asked for another continuance to Wednesday June 19, 2019 so as to prosure its first batch of materials witnesses adding that their application for a continuance is not intended to baffle in the proceedings but same is made in good faith.
Also during the hearing of the application for continuance, lawyer representing the legal interest of co-defendant J. Alex Tyler, cllr. J. Johnny Momo said co-defendant et-al said the application made by the prosecution has no good merit, because similar application was made prior before and again prosecution asked the court to continue the matter until June 19, 2019 under the pretext to secure witnesses.
Cllr. Momo added that when prosecution made similar request last sitting, prosecution again told the court that definitely they will commence trial on yesterday which was June 17, 2019 at 9am.
But one of counsels for defendants added that they reluctantly agreed with prosecution, as the court should warn prosecution to desist from making applications that are not supported by law.
Meanwhile, Criminal Court C. Judge Peter W. Gbeneweleh cited section 20.2 of the criminal procedure law of 1973, which provides for waiver of trial by jury and the provision. It provides that in all cases, except where a sentence of death may be imposed, trial by jury may be waived by a defendant who has the advice of counsel or who is himself, an attorney, such attorney shall be in open court and entered of record.
Criminal Court C, Judge Peter W. Gbeneweleh also cited Article 21(h) of the 1986constitution that provides that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime, except in the case of impeachment, cases arising in the armed forces and petty offenses; unless upon indictment by a grand jury; and in all such cases, the accused shall have the right to a speedy, public and impartial trial by a jury of a vicinity, unless such person shall wave appropriate understanding, expressively waive the right of jury trial.
According to Judge Gbeneweleh, when the case was called for hearing, the court said that they waived their constitutional and statutory rights by jury. And the court said both the statutory provision of 1973 and the constitution provision of 1986 gave the defendants their right to waive jury trial, where a sentence of death may be imposed since the multiple offenses are noncapital offenses.
The court said in other words, where sentence may be imposed in a criminal trial, a defendant cannot waive a jury trial. It added that in such a case at bar, the multiple offenses are noncapital offenses, and the defendants have their statutory and constitutional right to waive jury trial and the submission made by prosecution was granted consistent with section 20.3 of the criminal procedure law shall be sit as jury De facto and judge to decide the matter.
The court stressed that in section 1.6 sub-paragraph 4 of the criminal procedure law which provides for continuance and the provision of law states that “except where otherwise provided by law, the court in which an action is pending may grant a continuance of proceedings in a proper case upon such terms as may be just.”
Furthermore, the court stated that this was the fourth continuance requested by prosecution in the case and that terms purpose of several continuances are not just on grounds that the defendants are entitled to their statutory and constitutional rights of speedy trial. And the court however, said that co-defendant J. Alex Tyler counsel imposed no objection that the request of the prosecution is in line with law.
In the meantime, the legal counsel of the other defendants interposed objection but reluctantly requested the court to grant the continuance and said co-defendant J. Alex Tyler does not have a separate trial. So, his counsel and other counsels should speak with one voice since all the defendants are jointly charged.
Therefore, the application for continuance was granted and the matter was assigned for Wednesday June 19, 2019 at 9am.