PHOTO: Sen. Karnga-Lawrence and Chairman Bility’s political lockjam continues
By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia- The Monrovia City Court has dismissed charges against the opposition Liberty Party embattled but NEC-recognized Chairman and the party’s Secretary General, by suspended political leader Senator Nyonblee Karnga-Lawrence that they allegedly altered the LP constitution.
The Monrovia City court headed by Magistrate Jomah Jallah has left senator Nyonblee Kangar-Lawrence fraction in the wilderness and dismissed criminal charges against Liberty Party embattled Chairman, Musa Hassan Bility and Secretary General Martin Kullah on grounds that those who file lawsuit lack legal standing and capacity.
Judge Jallah’s ruling was handed down on Thursday, February 10, 2022.
The Liberty Party has for some time now been locked in a leadership crisis, with Sen. Karnga-Lawrence accusing them of forgery and criminal conspiracy. Weeks ago, she announced she was nullifying Bility’s chairmanship and appointing former chairman Senator Steve Zargo.
But the National Elections Commission has disputed her claim, insisting that the 2021 version of the party’s constitution remains the only legitimate constitution it recognizes. NEC said it would continue to recognize it, unless and until it is challenged or replaced through the proper procedure, in a December 13, 2021 letter addressed to the embattle LP political leader, Sen. Karnga-Lawrence.
During the argument for the motion to dismiss, lawyers representing the embattled Liberty Party chairman Bility, headed by Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson relied on section 11.2(e) of the Civil procedure law, title 1, Liberia Code of law revised regarding the legal capacity or legal standing of the private prosecutors who brought the complaint suit.
The complaint was however, later modified and augmented at the Criminal procedure law, title 2, of the Liberia code of law Revised, substantively alleging objections and defects in the prosecution’s charges against the said same defendants as ground for the dismissal of the action.
The movant/defendants contended that those who issued the lawsuit are not only suspended from active party activities for a string of administrative reasons.
But it said that they do not have the power and authority to speak for the Liberty Party on any issues without being duly authorized by the National Executive committee, let alone bringing any action and on behalf of the Liberty Party.
Furthermore, the movant contended that only the executive committee of the Liberty Party has the legal authority to prosecute an action of this sort on behalf of the party and to do so, will require (two-third) majority votes of the fifty members of the National executive committee as in keeping with the Party’s constitution.
The movants concluded that member of the Liberty Party but is the only legally qualified and sue recognized national chairman of the party by the national elections commission and therefore the action should be denied and dismissed for want legal capacity to sue.
On the other hand in resisting the motion, state prosecutors headed by Liberia’s Solicitor General Saymah Syrenius Cephas begged to dismiss the motion and prayed court to disregard movant’s motion, as if same has not been filed or did not exist on grounds that movant reliance on section 11.2(e) of the Civil procedure law contesting and challenging the Republic of Liberia visa-vis the private prosecutors legal capacity or legal standing to bring this action of forgery of Criminal conspiracy and criminal facilitation against the defendants is legally flawed for the fact that the Republic of Liberia does not have to show legal standing or capacity to bring a criminal action against a Liberian citizen or anyone residing within its borders.
The court determined its ruling on the following grounds.
Whether or not the lack of legal standing or capacity to bring an action is tantamount to defects in a criminal action and may be used as grounds for a motion to dismiss under section 16.7 of the criminal procedure law?
Whether or not the statutory provision that grants this court the power and authority to issue arrest warrants based on a complaint by any individual automatically makes the Republic of Liberia a party complainant to a criminal action?
As to the first issue of whether or not the lack of legal standing or capacity to bring an action is tantamount to defects in a criminal action and may be used as grounds for a motion to dismiss under section 16.7 of the criminal procedure law, this court is duly bound to revert to the law for answers.
Standing to sue, according to the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia in the case Concerned sector-youth vs. LISGIS et al(2010) means that a party has sufficient stake in an otherwise justifiable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy.
The requirement of standing is satisfied if it can be said that the plaintiff has a legally protectable and tangible interest at stake in the litigation.
In the mind of the court, the elementary definition of legal standing refers to a vested interest or a right in an action shown from injuries directly suffered or some vested interest or rights granted a party in a representative capacity by means of a legal instrument to prosecute an action. In the instant case, the act complained of by the Republic of Liberia by and thru the private prosecutions is said to have been committed against the Liberty Party’s constitution.
From the record before court, there is no showing that the Liberty Party which is said to have been injured directly as a consequence of the alleged conduct by the defendants has complained through its National executive committee or has executed a resolution authorizing a formal criminal action to be taken or brought be against defendants Musa Bility and Martin Kollah for forgery, criminal conspiracy and criminal facilitation.
However, what is before this court for determination is the complaint by some partisans of the Liberty Party accusing their own chairman and the Secretary General of forging and altering the Liberty Party constitution.
As to the second issue of whether or not the statutory provision that grants this court the power and authority to issue arrest warrants based on a complaint by an individual automatically makes the Republic of Liberia a party complainant to a criminal action, this court says this issue is somewhat ancillary to the first issue raised above and for this reason, this court will answer negative in part and affirmative in party.
As to the negative in part, this court says unless a law enforcement agency commences a criminal action, either through a formal criminal investigation or by other means, the Republic of Liberia cannot on its own volition institute an action pursuant to section 10.6(b) of the criminal procedure law.
For the affirmative, answer in part, this court fully agrees with the prosecution and strongly disagreed with movants on ground that when a complaint is made, the testimony of complainant is duly examined under oath, the arrest warrants issued thereto, and the defendant is arrested, as in the instant case, the individual making the complaint is relegated to a new status of private prosecutors or prosecutrix.
The trial of his or her criminal complaint becomes the sole responsibility of the Republic of Liberia or the state.
That there being the case, and carefully analyzing the laws cited inter Alia, this court is of the the strong opinion that there is a vast difference between making a complaint and the commencement of trial.
Therefore, since the making of complaint is exclusively the role of an individual under section 10.6(b) of the Criminal procedure law and is not the same as the arrest and subsequent trial of the defendants over which the prosecution had exclusive power, this court is unable to ignore the fact that movants’ motion is directed at making of the complaint-who are those making the complaint and not who is or has authority to try the complaint for and behalf of the private prosecutors.
With that clarification, this court is left with no other alternative but to grant movants’/defendants motion to dismiss and hereby ordered the allegation of forgery, criminal conspiracy and criminal facilitation against Musa Bility and Martin Kollah be denied and dismissed under chapter 16 section 16.7 of the criminal procedure code of Liberia and all legal citations appertaining thereto.