Monrovia – Lawyers representing indicted Grand Cape Mount Senator Varney Sherman appeared furious in court Wednesday and made a stinging attack on the prosecution, alleging gross violating of the law ahead of the trial of their client.
Report by Kennedy L. Yangian [email protected]
The lawyers’ comments come after the State failed to file a resistance on time in the motion filed by the defense to Criminal Court “C” for the state to dismiss the indictment against their client and quash the charges of economic sabotage, bribery, criminal conspiracy, facilitation and solicitation.
The indictment against Senator Sherman stated that the crime for which he was indicted is reported to have occurred between the period of 2010 and 2011.
But the defense lawyers have called on the court to have the indictment against Senator Sherman dismissed because the indictment is not specific of the time the alleged crime was committed as the indictment needs to state the time and place the crime is reported to have been committed.
The defense lawyers have also called on the court to have the indictment dismissed because it was alleged that the crime was committed between the periods of 2010-2011.
“If so the state should have gone ahead to proceed with the trial as the law provides a crime allegedly committed by a defendant should be tried within the period of five years”.
However, the bid for the court to hear the motion turned into a show of accusation when the defense lawyers frowned on the delay by the prosecution to file their resistance to the motion in the time required by law, saying the prosecution’s action is a gross violation.
Cllr. Moses Paegar, President of the Liberia Bar Association (LNBA) who is also the lead lawyer for Senator Sherman, told the court on Wednesday that the motion to dismiss the indictment and quash charges was filed on June 25, 2016 to the court, further asking the court to take judicial notice.
Not with standing, Cllr. Paegar went on to tell the court in his submission that the motion was filed and same was served on the respondent/state on the same June 25, 2016 but the respondent failed and neglected to file a resistance to the said motion until 2PM Wednesday, August 17, 2016 exactly the same time that the court had scheduled for hearing in the case, nearly two months few days short of two months since the movant’s motion was filed.
Cllr. Paegar continued that the law provides that a resistance in a motion must be filed and served on the adversary within 24 hrs. Prior to the hearing of the motion so that the adversary may have notice of what is contained in the resistance in order to prepare himself adequately for the argument of the motion and the resistance thereof.
“Counsel says that by the failure and neglect of counsels for the respondent to have filed and served and or interpose a resistance to the movant’s motion at least 24 hours prior to the assigned date and time of the motion, respondent is in gross and serious violation of the law,” said Cllr. Paegar who asked for time up to Thursday, August 18, 2016 for the hearing of the motion.
In their resistance to the motion, state lawyers led by Cllr. Theophilus Gould told the court that the application confused the requirement of filing and disposition of motion governed by the rules of the court on the filing of resistance and that the rule provides that a motion can only be heard when filed 24 hours before it is noticed to be heard.
“Respondent submits that the statement that it is a legal requirement to file a resistance 24hrs before the motion is heard is erroneous and not in consistent with the practice of law,” said Cllr. Gould.
In his ruling Judge Emery Paye indicated that the law provides that a resistance to a motion may be spread on the minutes of court during the hearing and should adverse parties intend to file formal resistance, it should be made within an ample time given to the movant to peruse such resistance so as to place itself in a proper position for argument.
“Wherefore the request for the postponement of the hearing of motion for today is hereby granted and hearing of the motion and resistance will be heard on Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 10:00 am,” said Judge Paye.