IPNEWS: The government of Liberia is expected to shortly drop all charges in ongoing trail of Mr. Alexander B. Cummings, and others for ‘forgery and criminal conspiracy’ brought against them by the All Liberian Party ( ALP).
According to Solicitor-General, Sayma Syrenius Cephus, there is no reason to further adjudicate the case following the Supreme Court Friday, June 3, ruling in the Unity Party petition for participation in the ensuing Lofa County Senatorial Bi-Election.
Cephus in a rather usual statement captioned: “Why All Criminal Charges Are Dropped Against Alexander B. Cummings and Others “Without Prejudice to the State,” stated that the trilateral constitutional power vested in the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia under Article 2 of the 1986 Constitution to review, declare and interpret any laws, treaties, statutes, decrees, customs and regulations deemed repugnant and have same declared unconstitutional or illegal, has binding force and effect on all authorities and persons throughout the Republic. Therefore, the Supreme Court, consistent with its review and interpretative powers, has accordingly declared section 8.5(2) of the CPP Framework document, although not a legislative enactment, illegal and void ab initio. This review and interpretive judgment, although contentiously debatable academically, by any stretch of imagination, is, and however becomes the law of the land and has inarguably binding force and effect on all and sundry unless the said judgment is recalled by the court itself.
Sayma Syrenius Cephus: “Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s interpretation, and being a Liberian citizen who has practiced and continues to practice before this court of last resort, I find it absolutely difficult if not impossible to delude myself of the fact that when the court speaks on any issue of law whether directly or indirectly, as in the case of Alexander B. Cummings, every other major or auxiliary issue appertaining thereto becomes legally shallow or moot and somewhat difficult if not impossible to litigate.”
“That said, the excitement and the will power to vigorously prosecute the Cummings’ case and ensure that justice, whether “CONVICTION or ACQUITTAL” is achieved, have strangely fallen on ice. Therefore, I am constrained to highlight the compelling need of calling a spade a spade, end the trial and drop any and all criminal charges against defendants Alexander B. Cummings and his lieutenants WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE STATE and WITH THE RIGHT TO RE-FILE WHERE APPLICABLE. In so doing, let me refresh and drill your mind through some of the actions in court for the last five (5) months in prosecuting a “misdemeanor” and why such a decision has become an ALTERNATIVE to serve as a form of a respite rather than an absolute relief.” Cephus stated.
The Liberia Solicitor-General said that during the Framework forgery and conspiracy trial, he strangely noticed what appears to be an unnecessary worn-out contest between two conflicting words being used by the CPP leaders in their debates over the alleged original and disputed framework document all bearing the date of May 19, 2020. He made for instance, the original Collaborating Political Parties (CPP) framework according to former constitutional Vice President Joseph Nyumah Boakai in an answer to a question on the cross contained the word “RESIGN”, which according to him was an option given to a party desirous of quitting the CPP for cause; whereas the disputed version of the same CPP framework document also bearing the date of May 19, 2020, contains the word “WITHDRAWAL” which, according to section 8.5(2) of the selfsame document can only be invoked by a party after 2024.
“Be that as it may, the actual conflict is not about the May 19, 2020 date or the signing procedure of the document by zoom, instead, it is about or is between the word: “RESIGN” which the former Vice President has alluded to; and the word: “WITHDRAWAL” which is contained in section 8.5(2) of the disputed framework document filed with the NEC by Alexander B. Cummings and his disciples. These two words by all accounts, are profoundly synonymous in context, usage and practice and are intended to achieve one objective—to leave, depart or go out. Neither of these two words is defined in Article 1 of the definition of both the Amended and disputed framework documents.”
“However, from the context in which the phrase: “A constituent party desiring to withdraw…” is used in sections 8.5(ii) and 8.5(2) of both the amended and disputed framework documents respectively, it is obvious to easily infer that the word “withdrawal”, as used, means “to leave, depart or quit”.”
“However, for clarity purposes we revert to the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary which defines the word “ Resign” as: “to quit, abdicate, abnegate, cede, relinquish, renounce, step aside from, step down from or surrender,” and the same the online Merriam Webster dictionary also defines” withdrawal” as: “removal, taking away, cancellation, abolition, termination, or the action of ceasing to participate in an act.” Sayma Syrenius Cephus narrated.
