Monrovia – In the wake of the pending ruling by the Supreme Court in the impeachment saga of Associate Justice Kabineh Ja’neh, Cllr. Arthur Johnson, the lead lawyer representing the embattled Associate Justice, has expressed explicit confidence in the Supreme Court.
Report by Kennedy L.Yangian [email protected]
Cllr. Johnson’s statement Monday, November 19, comes in the wake of a media report that lawyers representing the legal interest of the Justice Ja’neh are frustrated in the reported delay by the Supreme Court to hand down ruling in the Writ of Prohibition filed on behalf of the Associate Justice to prohibit the lawmakers from further proceeding with the case.
A local daily reported on Monday, November 19, accused Cllr. Johnson of being frustrated in the delay in the prohibition ruling by the Supreme Court.
The newspaper quoted Cllr. Johnson as saying: “We were only told that they were going to call us for the judgment but it has not happened up to now. I am frustrated over the way they are delaying the ruling.”
However, Cllr. Johnson has told FrontPageAfrica that at no time did he grant an interview with the Daily Observer’s nor its reporter assigned at the court.
“I am a Supreme Court lawyer, who knows that when a case is before the high court one does not need to make comment because the court has to take time to research and come out with a ruling,” said Cllr. Johnson.
Even though he didn’t disclose his next move, he has meanwhile threatened the management of the Daily Observer with some action, if the story is not retracted.
Associate Justice Ja’neh stands accused in the impeachment proceeding by two lawmakers of the ruling Coalition of Democratic Change (CDC), Representatives Acarous Gray of Montserrado County District #8 and Thomas Fallah of Montserrado County District #5.
Both have rallied their colleagues in the House of Representatives to impeach Justice Ja’neh. They accused the Associate Justice of multiple counts, including corruption but Cllr. Johnson had petitioned the Supreme Court through a Writ of Prohibition to place a stay order on the impeachment because they were proceeding wrongly against the doctrine of due process as enshrined in the 1986 Constitution in the case of an accused person.