By: Journalist Emmanuel T Degleh
Senator McGill is seeking to leverage the Supreme Court to avoid further investigations by the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission into allegations his actions concerning the Ministry of State supplementary payroll scandal. McGill claims that he was acting on orders from President George Weah, implying that he should not be held personally responsible.
Former Defense Minister Samukai case sets a significant legal precedent. Samukai, like McGill, claimed to have acted on the orders of a superior—former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf—when he misused funds related to the Armed Forces of Liberia (AFL). Despite this defense, the court held him accountable.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Samukai case underscores the principle that government officials are individually responsible for their actions, even if they were following orders. This ruling sends a clear message that blindly following potentially illegal instructions from superiors is not a valid defense.
McGill’s Strategy by turning to the Supreme Court, may be attempting to preemptively block or delay investigations that could lead to legal consequences. His actions suggest a fear that, like Samukai, he could be held personally responsible for any wrongdoing, regardless of his claim of acting on presidential orders.
McGill’s fear likely stems from the precedent set in the Samukai case, where the court ruled against the argument of acting under orders. If McGill’s case were to follow a similar trajectory, he might face significant legal and political consequences.
There is also a concern about the political repercussions. Being embroiled in a legal scandal could damage McGill’s political career and credibility. The court’s ruling could weaken his defense and expose him to further scrutiny and possible criminal charges.
In the Samukai case, the former Defense Minister argued that he was merely executing orders from then-President Sirleaf regarding the use of funds earmarked for AFL personnel savings.
However, this defense did not absolve him from responsibility.
The court’s ruling against Samukai indicates that following orders is not a sufficient defense when those orders involve illegal or improper actions. This outcome is likely influencing McGill’s current legal strategy, as he might see parallels between his situation and Samukai’s.
Senator McGill’s decision to seek the Supreme Court’s intervention seems to be an effort to avoid the same fate as Samukai, who was held accountable despite claiming to act on presidential orders.
McGill’s fears likely revolve around the legal precedent that could render him culpable regardless of his defense.
The case highlights the importance of personal accountability in government positions and the judiciary’s role in upholding the law, even when powerful political figures are involved.
My thoughts!
