GOL Dribbles Court In Sable Mining Bribery Case; Request Another Extension
By: T. Lula Jaurey IPNews-Monrovia-Liberia-Thursday January 3 2018: Government persecutors in ongoing are requesting Judge J. Bioma Kontoe, presiding judge of Criminal Court “C”, for another extension into Sable Mining Bribery Case legal arguments. Prosecution stated that it was unprepared to proceed with further proceedings due to insufficiency of time to produce witness that are important to the ongoing trail. The request for extension now brings to two the number of occasions since the resumption of the Sable Mining case. It may be recall government lawyers prior to the festive season pleaded with Criminal Court “C” judge J. Bioma Kontoe for three weeks to afford all parties the opportunity to have a free, fair and transparent hearing in the matter. The lawyers also requested that the court order its clerk to delete or remove all names of defendants including Andrew Groves and others who during the course of the trial, were severed. The lawyers stated that, the defendants whose trial proceeded at the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia out of which the mandate calls for trial denovo is in keeping with law. The further argued that the extension would furthermore get witnesses to appear before the court to testify against the accused. Those currently standing trail for economic sabotage, conspiracy,and bribery includes Grand Cape Mount County Senator H. Varney G. Sherman, Former House Speaker J. Alex Tyler, Kool FM CEO Christopher Onanugua, Richard Tolbert, E.C.B. Jones, Eugene Shannon, Morris Saytumah and Willie Belleh. It may be recall the government of Liberia in 2016 indicted the pairs for allegedly receiving bribed from the Sable Mining in the tune of ninety-two thousand to change the concession laws and other laws of Liberia to favor Sable Mining, the claims the accused have since denied. But appearing Monday, Dec. 31, 2018, prosecution counsel could not produce any of the witnesses as requested but indicated that their failure is due to the festive season. Prosecution further informed the court that, “most of the witnesses who appeared in the previous trial when contacted in accordance with trial denovo, insisted that they are unable to attend the proceedings now due to the holiday seasons. Additionally, the Prosecution stated that in its previous motion for continuance to this court, it requested court to have the case transferred to the February A.D. 2019 Term of Court or defer it to next term of court to allow witnesses time to testify as done in previous trial but the court was yet to grant its appeal. Due to the alleged inconsistency of government lawyers the court has since fined government prosecution lawyers three hundred United States dollars to be deposited in the judicial account within three days. Prior to the recess of the case, the court furthermore stated during its last sitting held on Wednesday, December 19, 2018, that “prosecution haven’t made its submission requesting continuance the court notes that in response thereto, Counsel for defendants said that the request of prosecution to deferred the matter to a later date or term of court, the defendants counsel interposed no objection to said application and leaves the matter to the discretion of the court as to the exact period to be granted for continuance of the trial,” “ However, this court ruled, granting prosecution request for continuance with modification that the matter be continued to Friday, December 28, 2018, at 9:AM, and now, after the call of the case in keeping with said notice indicated in the minutes of the court, prosecution has once again made another submission for continuance,” “The continuance requested on December 19, 2018, was for the purpose of allowing the prosecution time to appropriately response to the motion filed by the defendants for subpoena duces tecum and testificadum to be issued and served on a number of persons named in said motions, without addressing the issue as envisaged by this court; that is, to have prosecution response or resistance to said motions, prosecution has once again requested court for continuance, “ This court views the request not only as derogation on the part of prosecution but as an indication of prosecution inability to respond to the motions in question, “The defendants counsel is simply requested to this court for compulsory process to have individuals named in the said motions to appear and or to produce documents, and in the mind of this court, such as request, as enshrined in the motions, should not be a basis for prosecution to baffle and delay the disposition of said motions.” Presiding Judge Kontoe stated. Accordingly,Judge Konte quoting chapter 7,section 10.7 of the Civil Procedure Law, applicable to criminal proceedings, noted that ‘if a party does not appear to oppose a motion or fails to furnish the papers demanded on due notice, the motion shall be granted on proof of due service of the notice and required papers. In the instant case, the prosecution has not raised any issue of notice or motions in question, but has repeatedly requested court for continuance to be able to respond to the motion for subpoenas Ad Testificadum and Duces Tecum filed by the defendant’s counsels’. Judge Kontoe stated further that defense Lawyers resisting the application made by prosecution, said that, while the exercise of the profession is described as practicing law, such law will not permit the Government of Liberia to practice at the expense of liberties of prominent individuals. “Counsels say, said application for continuance is void of all legal bases established in this jurisdiction and is made in bad faith.” Judge Kontoe noted. Proceeding further on his ruling, Judge Kontoe noted that the defendant’s counsels further stated that, the matter to be heard has no relevance to the availability of the witnesses for prosecution, as the trial of the case has not commenced, where the prosecution’s witnesses are to testify. “It will be prudent to pass on the motions and grant same as a matter of right and law, so that the prosecution can employ the instrumentality of the court to produce their witness’s prior to the actual commencement of the trial, even if testimonies are not to commence and may not be able to commence during this term of court, “Therefore, the application made by prosecution is made in bad faith and further intended to delay and baffle this trial, “However, prosecution lawyers further noted that, their request to the court to allow them consolidate the two motions filed by the defendant’s counsels for subpoena duces tecum and ad testificadum so as to traverse said motions is sound and grounded in law as enshrined in Article 21 (h) of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia and Chapter 17, section 17.2 of the Criminal Procedure Law of and because the said consolidated motions are harmless to the Republic of Liberia.” Judge J. Boima Kontoe ruling stated.
