A writ of certiorari is a writ filed by party to a case to the high court Justice for the review of ruling made by judges of the lower courts. The high court will rule to either dismiss the ruling or uphold it if it is in consonance with the law. According to the source, the case against the two senior former NPA officials on the docket of the Criminal Court “C” could not be heard during the just started August term of court due to the pending writ of certiorari against the judge that will preside over the case.
When contacted on the matter, another source close to the Criminal Court “C” confirmed the prosecution’s move but claimed that it was the right of the prosecution under the law to file the writ of certiorari against any judge’s ruling. The prosecution’s writ of certiorari will now give the high court the opportunity to hear the argument and determine the fate of the bond which has been marred by brouhaha between the state and defense lawyers.
Both Parker and Paelay were indicted during the May Term of Court on three counts of economic sabotage, theft of property and criminal conspiracy for allegedly awarding over US$800,000 contract to a bogus company to dredge the port. State lawyers have been contending that the Family Dollar Insurance Company which filed the US$1.2m insurance bond on behalf of the pair did not have the assets to file such a big bond.
“You told us that you have the assets to file a US$1.2m bond; show us the proof to convince us,” said lead prosecution lawyer Cllr. Daku Mulbah. In a counter argument, defense lawyer Cllr. Federick Cherue, told the court not to honor the prosecution’s request as the insurance company has met all requisite requirements set by the CBL as a duly qualified insurance company to operate in the country.
“This company has met requirement set up by the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL), US$400, 000, 00 cash, US$350,000.000 worth of properties and US$750,000.00 re-assurance surety,” Cllr. Cherue claimed. In the wake of the argument pro and cons, presiding Judge Peter Gbeneweleh ruled two weeks ago to approve the bond of the two defendants claiming that the insurance company did meet the requirements and has the asset to grant the bond.
However, prosecution lawyer took exception to the ruling that the judge was in error because the insurance company did not show the court any evidence to convince the court that it has the assets in question.