London – Liberia’s Permanent Representative to IMO, Atty. Isaac W. Jackson Jr. has sharply reacted to Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson press conference of January 23, 2020, describing Cllr. Johnson’s action as misleading and deceptive.
Jackson says contrary to Cllr. Johnson’s meaningless prevarications, he wrote Cllr. Jonson two separate communications pertaining to Johnson’s decision to unceremoniously withdraw from the case. The first letter on April 22, 2019 acknowledged Cllr. Johnson’s withdrawal, while the second letter on May 9, 2019 requested him to reinstate himself because he was in violation of the law. Contrary to the Rule of Court, Cllr. Johnson failed to adhere to the advice. Hence, Jackson calls on Cllr. Johnson to honestly address himself to his letter dated May 9, 2019.
Isaac Jackson explains that following Cllr. Johnson’s Press Conference of April 22, 2019, notifying him about his withdrawal, he (Jackson) instantly replied Cllr. Johnson the same very day (April 22, 2019) accepting his withdrawal notice with thanks. However, following a two-week period of research, Jackson says he realized that Cllr. Johnson’s notice of withdrawal was not grounded in law. Hence, he wrote Cllr. Johnson a second letter dated May 9, 2019, asking Cllr. Johnson to reinstate himself, a letter Cllr. Johnson is maliciously concealing from the press. Jackson wonders why Cllr. Johnson is trying to destroy himself in this manner.
Jackson further says that it is shamelessly embarrassing that Cllr. Johnson would twist the facts and subsequently brag about representing him for little money. Atty. Jackson argues that even if Cllr. Arthur Johnson was rendering a pro bono service, he (Johnson) was still legally bound to be professional and ethical in his work as a lawyer at all times.
Isaac Jackson says he is aware that his friend, Cllr. Johnson is unhappy about his dismissal. But it does not warrant such kneejerk reaction on Arthur Johnson’s part.
According to Isaac Jackson, the decision to dismiss his longtime friend, Cllr. Johnson was extremely difficult for him. However, he (Jackson) was constrained to dismiss Arthur Johnson in the wake of the Supreme Court’s continual recognition of Cllr. Johnson as his lawyer by virtue of the court’s invitation, requesting him to appear and argue on his behalf on January 15, 2020.
Atty. Isaac Jackson also explains that the most recent invitation from the Supreme Court was indicative that the Court did not accept or recognize Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson’s withdrawal in keeping with the legal maxim that “what is done contrary to the law, is considered as not done.” So, he (Jackson) had to politely relieve Cllr. Johnson from the case, and appoint a new counsel in person of Human Rights lawyer, Cllr. Finley Yujay Karngar to continue with his prohibition case.