Monrovia – Lawyers representing the legal interest of embattled Speaker of the House of Representatives, Alex Tyler, suffered a major legal blow Tuesday at the Supreme Court when the High Court Associate Justice in-Chamber Jamesetta Howard Wolokollie declined to grant a petition for a writ of prohibition.
Report by Kennedy L. Yangian kennedylyangian@frontpageafricom
The petition for writ of prohibition was filed by lawyers representing Speaker Tyler on August 12, 2016 for Associate Justice Wokollie to restrain the anti- Tyler lawmakers, headed by Deputy Speaker Hans Barchue from holding parallel session with the embattled speaker at the House of Representatives.
The anti- Tyler lawmakers, known as the ‘majority bloc’ in the House of Representatives, are calling on the Speaker to rescue himself as presiding officer because of his indictment by the state for bribery.
The Speaker’s indictment for bribery, economic sabotage, criminal conspiracy, facilitation and solicitation has grown out of the Global Witness report that he allegedly received US$75,000 from a British Company to allegedly amend the Procurement and Concession Commission Act (PPCC) in favor of Sable Mining to mine the Wologisi Mountain in Lofa County.
But Cllr. Johnny Momoh, representing the speaker told the court Monday during a conference with the anti-Tyler lawmakers that the House Speaker was duly elected and has been serving the House of Representatives twice in that position until recently when some of his colleague asked him to rescue himself from presiding because of his indictment by the state.
According to Cllr. Momoh, there is no law neither is there a rule of the House of Representatives that calls for an elected speaker to rescue himself from further presiding when he has been indicted and that the holding of another session against the elected House Speaker Tyler was illegal and it violates the organic laws of the country.
“Your honor based on the facts and circumstances lay down we prayed the court to issue an alternative writ of prohibition against the belligerent lawmakers,” said Cllr. Momoh.
However, lawyer representing the majority lawyers, Cllr. Arthur Johnson told Justice Wolokollie that the lawmakers opposing the speaker from further presiding have earlier raised the motion for the Speaker’s recusal on the floor of the House of Representatives for Speaker Tyler’s consideration but he has refused to accept the motion.
Cllr. Johnson told the court at the conference that the issue currently taking place at the House among the lawmakers was purely political and that the court cannot get involved in political matters.
According to Cllr. Johnson, the opposing lawmakers calling on the Speaker was not doing so unlawfully as Rule 45.1 of the House’s rule says that a speaker or member of the House of Representative can be asked to recuse himself from a committee when accused of an act and that person remains out until that issue is investigated and a determination is made.
A day after the conference on Monday, Associate Justice-In-Chamber Jamesetta Howard-Wolokollie told the parties to the case that she has declined to issue the alternative writ of prohibition though she had earlier told the parties to the case that she was studying the facts advanced at the conference and will choose whether to issue the alternative or not to issue the alternative writ of prohibition.
A letter from the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court Martha Henries addressed to the parties reads: By directive of her honor Jamesetta Howard Wolokollie Associate Justice-In-Chambers, you are hereby informed that her honor Justice Wolokollie has declined to issue the writ of prohibition.