Monrovia – The Supreme Court of Liberia has ordered its clerk to make an assignment into the hearing of an appeal filed by the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission.
Report by Bettie K. Johnson-Mbayo/ [email protected]
The order of the court derived from a motion to dismiss appeal via former Commerce Minister, current board chair of the National Social Security and Welfare Corporation and others named in an indictment.
The others are: Steve Flahn Paye, then Director, Division of Price Analysis Marketing, Ministry of Commerce, T. Nelson Williams, former Managing Director of the Liberia Petroleum Refinery Corporation and Aaron Wheagar former Deputy Managing Director for Operations (LPRC).
Court record states that the defendants’ indictment stems from the sale and distribution of the Japanese oil grant valued at US$13,083,350.00 donated by the Japanese Government to the Government of Liberia.
Both Madam Beysolow and Mr. Williams were released of the criminal charges by suspended Judge Emery Paye, who dismissed them on grounds that the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LAC) failed to produce sufficient evidence to support the corruption charges against the indictees.
The accused were indicted for economic sabotage, misapplication of entrusted of property, criminal conspiracy, facilitation and violation of the Public Procurement Concession Commission’s (PPCC) procedures and processes.
The ruling from the lower court triggered an appeal to the Supreme Court by the LACC upon which BeysOlow requested the high Court to dismiss the appeal, stating that the appeal announced by the LACC should be denied on grounds that the LACC failed to close the records of the case to be transcribed and placed before the Supreme Court so that the appeal can be heard.
The ruling furthered that the LACC took the appeal to the wrong term of the Supreme Court; instead of the October A.D. 2016 Term, the LACC announced the appeal to the March, AD 2016 Term of the Supreme Court.
However, the LACC, through its counsels, in its resistance to the motion said, the failure of the records transmitted to the Supreme Court from the lower Court was not their fault but that of the clerk.
The counsel for the LACC also argued that there is no law that states the specific term of the Supreme Court to which an appeal should be taken.
Chief Justice Korkpor on the ruling of the motion to dismiss the appeal disclosed that the court will look at the key issues on statutory grounds for dismissal.
Chief Justice Korkpor said Beysolow failed to state legal ground for the dismissal of the appeal.
He cited Chapter 24, Section 24.7, and Criminal Procedure Law which states the requirements for the completion of an appeal are as follows:
- Announcement of the taking of the appeal
- Filing of the bill of exceptions
- Service and filing of the notice of completion of appeal
Failure to comply with any of the requirements stated above and within the time allowed shall be ground for the dismissal of the appeal.”
The Chief Justice noted that the statutory requirement for the completion of an appeal in a criminal case was not complied with by Beysolow.
“On this point, we say that clearly the counsel for LACC indeed announced an appeal to the wrong term of this Court.
The final ruling of the trial judge having been rendered on July 14, 2016, about five months after the Supreme Court had commenced its March 2016 Term of Court, the appeal announced by the counsel for the LACC should have been to the October, 2016 Term of the Supreme Court, instead of the March, 2016 Term which was already in progress and nearing completion.
“We hold, however, that the taking of an appeal to the wrong term of this Court has never been and is not a ground for the dismissal of an appeal. We therefore refuse to dismiss this appeal on this ground,” He said.
The Chief Justice Continued: “We take note from the records that the movant, prior to filing of the motion to dismiss, had filed a motion to advance the appeal on the docket of the Supreme Court. We take further note that the LACC has interposed no objection to the motion to advance the appeal.”
The Supreme Court disclosed that the appeal will be heard and determined during the March A.D. 2017 Term.
