Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson v,s. Cllr. Cephus & Monitored By Cllr. Verdier (PART I)

Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson’s drive for knowledge makes him look increasingly fearless and daring. And I couldn’t imagine that he had the depth and character to do this. I love his plain courage and I also relish his frank but brutal defense of his argument, as to why he thinks constitutional complications abounds in the full implementation of the TRC’s recommendations due to past Supreme Court’s challenges and judgments. Arthur Tamba Johnson is incredibly studious, and his legal perspicacity is quite   entertaining, but  as a  legal Paul from being  a wretched Saul,  I  strongly disagree with some of the generalities  that obfuscate  his deductive  reasoning. I suspect that his argument is   shrouded in judicial gymnastics and gross oversights of the criticalities and severities of some of  the issues, and   for this reason, I hereby present A No Case Argument to counter his devil advocacy of shredding some portions of the TRC’S recommendations. Interestingly, Cllr. Jerome Verdier joined in and monitored our debate but made no comments except an intermittent interruption of laughter triggered either by my outright dismissal or Cllr. Johnson’s explosive legal stamina to rain in more debatable issues.  Here are a few  excerpts of the debate:

Cllr. Johnson contended and rightly so that some portions of the  TRC’S recommendations were struck down  by the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia on account of not affording the accused  persons due process. He argued that the TRC use of   the “preponderance of evidence standard” or benchmark, considered the least in criminal prosecution as a basis of its findings, was fundamentally flawed, and the Supreme Court spoke to that in the Archie Williams’ case. He argued that the Supreme Court said Archie Williams was never afforded due process.  He  further argued that the standard requirement needed, should have been  on the basis of a “probable cause”, and for anyone to have been affected, the TRC should have used the “beyond reasonable doubts standard” consistent with due process as a basis of its findings. Arguing further, Cllr. Johnson added that in the face of the Supreme Court’s rulings and the current passage of a Joint Resolution by the National Legislature, there are compelling  constitutional complications that lied embedded in the path of establishing the  War and Economic Crimes Court for Liberia.

My Response:

As I indicated somewhere in  the  transcribed  excerpts of this debate,  I present a no case argument, and submit that my  great friend who is now a candidate  for admission under the UN backed IRMCT Rule#42, which will ultimately  qualify him to practice law and represent clients  as a  DEFENSE COUNSEL  before all  International Courts and Tribunals, of which I am a  senior counsel since 2016 and still counting, is slightly wrong and here’s why.

1.    I did not disagree that there were petitions filed against the TRC recommendations; I did not also disagree that there were Supreme Court’s rulings or judgments. My disagreement is that if Mr. Williams alleged that he was never given due process, who could have better spoken  to these allegations than the TRC?
2.     Why was the petition(s) not filed nunc pro tunc since the TRC had ceased to exist, and why  and how was the issue of preponderance of evidence argument raised? Was it   part of the petition?  What is a recommendation? Can you claim injury from a recommendation that has not been implemented? At this point, Cllr.  Jerome Verdier interrupted with laughter and asked: “Who were the parties?” Cllr. Johnson named the Ministry of Justice and the Independent National Human Rights Commission as the proper parties.
3.     The TRC’s findings were designated as “recommendations”—they were not laws and had no mandatory binding effect and, therefore, could have exacted any judicial action.  There were no injuries, and nobody was affected as they were nothing but recommendations.
4.      The TRC was not a court and moreover the statute that created the TRC set as its benchmark the “preponderance of evidence standard” as a basis for its findings, and therefore the TRC could not have adopted the probable cause regime and beyond all reasonable doubts standard.
5.      The petitions against the TRC’s recommendations were vexatious because the alleged acts complained of were futuristic, and their enforcement depended on the executive to accept or reject them. Since the executive did not act upon them, there was no injury, and there was no reason for any judicial action.
6.     Cllr. Johnson relied upon the case: “Mary Broh v. Legislature” as a basis for his argument but the irony is, the legislature had  issued a categorical order for Madam Broh’s  arrest and imprisonment and she fled scene, and there were still some actions were  left to be taken. Therefore, a petition for a Writ of Prohibition was the proper remedy at law available to Madame Borah. This case is not analogous to the petitions against the TRC’s recommendations. During the debate, I took flight to the  Edwin Kla Martin  case where the action complained of, had not happened, and therefore, the petition was denied. Since the TRC’s report was submitted to President Sirleaf, not a single recommendation has been implemented by successive governments. Therefore, there was no need for any petition.
7.     The Joint-Resolution is triggered by Article 1 of the 1986 Constitution for the safety and happiness of the people. The safety and happiness of the Liberian people are higher  and greater than any constitutional interpretation.
8.     The legislature’s decision to establish a War Crimes and Anti-Corruption Courts is constitutional. The decision is a public representation mandate consistent with Article 1 of the 1986 Constitution for the safety and happiness of the Liberian people. The President have  exercised the power granted him under Article 57 as Chief Foreign Architect  by signing the Rome Statute in 2002 and the legislature pursuant to Article 34(f) having ratified the treaty in 2004  to make it part of the domestic laws of Liberia, the legislature must now create a hybrid court(Article 34e), provide for the security of the state (Article 34b),establish various categories of criminal offenses and provide for  the punishment thereof(Article 34j) and make all other laws that are proper and necessary for the smooth governance of the state (Article 34l).
9. At this point, I was reminded that I needed to complete certain requirements for my Rule#43 admission,  and so I disengaged myself, but I was told both Cllr. Johnson and Verdier continued and  had  some kind words for my debate strategy, which has now promoted me from Saul to Paul. In summary there are no constitutional complications in the path of establishing the court. Hahahaha!