By Garmah Never Lomo,garmahlomo@gmail.com
One of the Lawyers representing the interest of co-defendant, Milton A. Weeks, Cllr. Abrahim Sillah said prosecution was in error and disclosed that the letter written to the clerk of criminal court C was misdirected and inappropriate for it is addressed to the clerk of the court instead of the presiding judge Peter W. Gbeneweleh.
Cllr. Sillah resistance came in the wake when the Montserrado county attorney Edwin Kla Martin wrote a letter to the clerk of criminal court C to grant them continuance for one week, instead of the presiding judge because their key material witnesses are away on officials duties. In a submission outlined in the said communication, the prosecution said the request made is not intended to baffle or delay these proceedings as those witnesses that are away on official assignment are prosecution’s material witnesses upon whom the strength of the case against the defendants that were present in the dock is based.
Cllr. Sillah resisting the prosecution’s request for continuance said was hereby incorperates the above mentioned resistance of the other co-defendants as though those resistances were specifically made by co-defendant Milton A. Weeks and requested the court to deny and dismiss the prosecution’s request.
Lawyer representing legal interest of Milton A. Weeks added that the court should disregard and ignore the request because the letter was misdirected and inappropriate for it is addressed to the clerk of the court instead of the presiding Judge.
Cllr. Sillah further stated in his resistant that under our laws, procedure and practices such letter should be and ought to be addressed to the presiding judge and not to the clerk because it is only the judge who has the legal authority to grant or deny continuamce request; not the clerk of the court.
Defense lawyer expressed that the prosecution attempt to address such letter to the clerk is misguided and an attempt to undermine the authority of the court for the clerk has no such authority to grant a continuance or deny same.
Cllr. Sillah therefore called on court to ignore and disregard the letter, deny the prosecution’s request and hold the county attorney Edwin Kla Martin in contempt for attempting to knowingly, willingly, and intentionally undermine the authority of the court by requesting the clerk to grant a continuance for the clerk has no authority to do so other than the presiding Judge.
Also resisting the application for continuance counsel for co-defendant Charles E. Sirleaf Cllr. J. Johnny Momo said under Liberian law, both the constitution and the statute grant unto the defendants in criminal proceedings, the right to speedy trial.
Cllr. Momo.further added that the application for continuance to obtain witnesses was vague and ambiguous adding that the application fail to state the name of those material witnesses who are allegedly out of the bailiwick of republic of Liberia.
He further narrated that Baba M. Boakai, Mark N. Kollie, Isaac C. Davies, Emmanuel Tarlu, Amos Goba, Marshall Dennis and J. Alex Tyler are all in the bailiwick of the republic of Liberia.
Cllr. Momo narrated that J. Alex Tyler, Mark Kollie were present in Court yesterday adding that under our law and practice, the prosecution is required to produce documentary evidence of the absent of their witnesses from the republic of Liberia and prosecition not haven done so, the application is baseless and unfounded and therefore should be denied.
Defend lawyer Cllr Momo told the court that co-defendant Charles E. Sirleaf Et. al, says that the only purpose and intent of prosecution application is to allow time for them to file a petition for the writ of Certiorari before the justice in chamber to review the recent ruling on the motion for justification of sureties. In it, judge denied the exception to co-defendant’s bond and confirmed the bail bonds of co-defendant Charles E. Sirleaf.
Meanwhile, the court noted the concern of the counsel for defendants that their clients are entitled to speedy trial as provided for under Article 21(h) of the 1986 constitution indicating that a careful perusal of the records before the court showed that this is the first continuance made by the prosecution in the case.
The court therefore granted prosecution the excuse for one week and the matter was assigned on June 24, 2019 at 9am.
However, during the hearing for continuance county attorney Edwin Kla Martin was a part of case but due to manner in which the letter was addressed, he hurriedly came to the court and all the lawyers( both from the defense counsel and prosecution) went for a conference in the Judge’s chamber and he pleaded for mercy and he was forgiven by the judge of the court for writing to the clerk, instead of the judge.