Monrovia – The quest to find Big Boy 1 and Big Boy 2, two of the mystery prime targets at the center of the Global Witness bribery report linking several current and former high-profile government officials, has hit a snag following the filing of a motion by Cllr. Varney Sherman and the Sherman and Sherman Law Firm to quash a subpoena for bank accounts of key suspects named in the scandal.
FrontPageAfrica reported last Friday that the Special Task Force set up to investigate the scandal had filed a Subpoena to the Judicial Circuit Court A for Montserrado County to at least five banks to appear before the court on Monday, May 23rd, 2016 at 12PM to produce bank statements for the period January 1, 2010 to September 30, 2010 for the United States Dollars Accounts in the names of several of those named in the GW report including: Sherman & Sherman; Sable Mining; Western Clusters; Delta Mining Consolidation(Pty)Ltd; West Africa Exploration; Varney Sherman; Morris Saytumah, Sumo Kupee, Cletus Wotorson, Alex Tyler, Henry Fahnbulleh, Richard Tolbert and Willie Belleh.
Cllr. Sherman who has communicated to the Task Force that he has no intentions of cooperating with the investigation, over the weekend filed the motion to dismiss the subpoena in a bid to deny access to the accounts of his firm on grounds that there is no pending case that requires the firm to release its financial records.
“What they(Sherman & Sherman) are saying is that in order for the Task Force to issue a subpoena, there must be an active case. But we are working on our response and pressing ahead”, a member of the Task Force told FrontPageAfrica Sunday.
Multiple sources confirmed to FrontPageAfrica Thursday that Cllr. Sherman informed the committee that he will never cooperate with the investigation because he has been accused by Global Witness of engaging in bribery of Liberian Government officials.
The lawyer reportedly reiterated what he has told journalists and radio talk shows in the past few days since the scandal unraveled, that nothing under the laws of Liberia compels him to attend an investigation by the Task Force and has no intentions of cooperating with the investigation.
Today, most of those named in the report have appeared before the Task Force, including Mr. Fombah Sirleaf, head of the National Security Agency(NSA) and son of President Sirleaf; Mr. Willie Belleh, Chairman of Public Procurement and Concessions Commission; Ernest C. B Jones, former Deputy Minister at the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy; former Senate Pro Temp Cletus Wotorson; Sumo Kupee, former Senator from Lofa County and current Managing Director of the Liberia Petroleum Refining Company.
Mr. Morris Saytumah, the former Minister of State for Legal and Economic Affairs who sent in an excuse last week that he was overseeing a confirmation hearing and could not appear before the committee is likely to appear in the coming days. Senator Saytumah allegedly received $50,000 for “consulting fees”, according to the Global Witness report.
Mr. Richard Tolbert, the former head of the National Investment Commission(NIC) appeared before the Task Force along with Mr. Chris Onunuga last Thursday. Tolbert is marked for two payments in the report, one a US$50,000 as “Consultant Fee” and a US$10,000 as US$20,000 as a donation to Invincible XI.
Tolbert reportedly told the Task Force that the “Gift” to IE had no influence on him and was of no benefit to him although Sable did not give corporate social responsibility to any other team. Mr. Tolbert is the President of the IE football club.
According to the report, Mr. Belleh, allegedly received $10,000 as “consulting fees” while Jones and Chris Onanuga are listed for receiving US$4,500 in accommodation fees.
Senator Kupee and former Pro Temp Wotorson are both named for allegedly receiving $5,000 each in “consulting fees”.
The report also alleges that President Sirleaf’s son, Fombah, benefited with “a $7,598 hunting trip to South Africa paid for by Sable.”
Mr. Charles Clarke, who was chairman of the ruling Unity Party when the US$200,000 changed hands, is currently in the United States of America but reportedly asked to be interviewed by phone. The Task Force is considering Skype option for the interview, a source told FrontPageAfrica Wednesday.
The London-based Watchdog Group has expressed its desire to assist with the investigation although it is unclear how much additional information it has provided the committee looking into the scandal.
In its report released last week, GW uncovered more than US$950,000 in bribes and other suspicious payments by UK mining firm Sable Mining and its Liberian lawyer, Sherman.
The report, The Deceivers (1), shows how in 2010 Sable hired Varney Sherman, Liberia’s best-connected lawyer and current Chairman of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s Unity Party, in an effort to secure one of Liberia’s last large mining assets, the Wologizi iron ore concession in northern Liberia.
Sherman told Sable that in order to obtain the contract the company must first get Liberia’s concessions law changed by bribing senior officials, according to a source familiar with the discussions. The account is backed up by leaked emails and company documents seen by Global Witness. (2)
According to the documents, Sherman then began distributing Sable’s money to some of Liberia’s most important government officials.
“Sable and Sherman paid bribes in order to change Liberia’s law and get their hands on one of its most prized assets, the Wologizi concession,” said Jonathan Gant, Senior Campaigner with Global Witness. “The government must act fast and investigate Sable, Sherman, and the officials they paid.”
Besides Sherman, Mr. Alex Tyler, Speaker of the House of Representatives have refused also expressed his refusal to appear before the committee although FrontPageAfrica has learned both sides appear to be making headway that could lead to a change of heart on the part of the speaker.
Dissecting Lawyer-Client
Meanwhile, FrontPageAfrica has learned that the Task Force is exploring options to challenge the claim by Cllr. Sherman that he is protected by Lawyer-client rights under the constitution which has been the crux of his argument not to cooperate with the force.
While legal experts say that are some public policy exceptions to the application of the attorney-client privilege, the rule does not apply in the case of an alleged crime or fraud is committed.
“If a client seeks advice from an attorney to assist with the furtherance of a crime or fraud or the post-commission concealment of the crime or fraud, then the communication is not privileged.
If, however, the client has completed a crime or fraud and then seeks the advice of legal counsel, such communications are privileged unless the client considers covering up the crime or fraud.”
Other notable exceptions include: Death of a Client – The privilege may be breached upon the death of a testator-client if litigation ensues between the decedent’s heirs, legatees or other parties claiming under the deceased client; Fiduciary Duty.
A corporation’s right to assert the attorney-client privilege is not absolute. An exception to the privilege has been carved out when the corporation’s shareholders wish to pierce the corporation’s attorney-client privilege; Common Interest Exception.
If two parties are represented by the same attorney in a single legal matter, neither client may assert the attorney-client privilege against the other in subsequent litigation if the subsequent litigation pertained to the subject matter of the previous joint representation.
Not all components of the attorney-client relationship are protected by or encompassed within the attorney-client privilege. For example, the existence of the attorney-client relationship or the lengths of the relationship are not privileged bits of information.
In fact, the general natures of the services performed by the lawyer, including the terms and conditions of the retention, are generally discoverable.
The factual circumstances surrounding the communications between an attorney and a client, such as the date of the communication and the identity of persons copied on correspondence, are likewise not privileged.
Participants in a meeting with an attorney, the length of a consultation and the documents evidencing same (e.g., calendars, appointment books) are not necessarily protected from compelled disclosure.
As for the fee arrangement between an attorney and a client, these documents are typically discoverable, except where such discovery would produce confidential communications with the client.
While the attorney-client privilege is firmly established as a legal doctrine that protects confidential communications between lawyers and their clients, its application is not absolute.
“The circumstances of the communication, its content and even subsequent actions relating to the privileged communication must be carefully considered to preserve the integrity of the privilege.”
Rodney D. Sieh, [email protected]