Monrovia – In a bid to clear her name, lawyers for Madam Matilda Parker, the former Managing Director of the National Port Authority (NPA) have developed a strategy to lay the blame on former President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.
Madam Parker has been pushing the new government under the leadership of President George Manneh Weah to speedily resume the case and give her a chance to clear her name.
“I want to clear my name,” the former MD was quoted in the Daily Trust newspaper online recently.
Parker has been adamant about her innocence while pressing the new government to prioritize reopening the case she says has tarnished “her hard-earned reputation”.
The Criminal Court ‘C’ at the Temple of Justice recently reopened the case, which has been dormant since 2017.
Madam Parker and her comptroller, Christiana Pealay are hoping to exonerate themselves against multiple charges, which include economic sabotage, criminal conspiracy, and theft of property for their alleged roles in the disappearance of US$800,000 from the NPA’s account during their tenure.
The pair was indicted for economic sabotage, theft of property, criminal conspiracy and facilitation for allegedly awarding a contract worth over US$800,000 to dredge the Greenville Port in Sinoe County to a bogus company.
Parker and Pealay went on trial in early 2016, but the case was adjourned after prosecutors alleged that someone had tampered with some of the jurors in the trial, after a letter was reported to have been intercepted by one of the court officers assigned with the jurors at the time of sequestration.
Parker and her lawyers are claiming that every action or decision taken by her was based on direct instructions from the former President.
The NPA is a public corporation with full financial autonomy under guidance of a board of directors.
Legal analysts say the former MD would have to say in respect of the contract that is the basis of the charge against her whether the Board of Directors approved the contract under reference and whether the contract was in compliance with the laws regarding public service contracts.
One legal expert told FrontPageAfrica recently that Parker’s lawyers may have to prove whether the alleged Presidential instruction was made formally and whether it is in breach of the laws and whether Madam Parker brought the allegations of Presidential circumvention of the rule of law to the Board’s attention.
“The evidence or lack of in this matter must be made clear, the former MD cannot undermine this process by scapegoating the former President,” the expert noted.
In arguments last week, defense counsel, Cllr. Arthur Johnson reading of a letter sent by former President Sirleaf to the former NPA boss Parker, instructing Parker to immediately proceed with the removal of a wreck from the Greenville Port as a way of paving the way for increasing government’s revenue.
Cllr. Johnson added that it was wrong on the part of the prosecution to have indicted the former NPA officials when Madam Sirleaf had issued them such instruction adding that they were her agents who were covered by her immunity as the law provides that the President cannot be sued neither can she be sued.
“This whole process of investigation was based on political agenda, therefore dismiss the indictment against the two defendants,” said Cllr. Arthur Johnson.
The defense counsel later made reference to the case, “Port versus Dennis 9LLR P.213, SYL4 Opinion of the Supreme handed down on January 24,1947.”
Referencing that opinion, Cllr. Johnson said the Supreme Court stated that agents of the President enjoyed prosecution immunity as the President.
But countering Cllr. Johnson’s argument, Solicitor General Cllr. Daku Mulbah who heads the prosecution team, argued that the same President suspended co-defendant Parker then Managing Director of the National Port Authority (NPA) and subjected her to criminal investigation and prosecution.
According to Cllr. Mulbah, the motion to dismiss lacks the condition for the dismissal of an indictment and that the Criminal Procedure Law Chapter 16, subsection16.7 says in order to dismiss an indictment there must be a defect in the institution of the prosecution or in the indictment.
“Wherefore and in view of the foregoing respondent requests your honor to deny, dismiss and quash the movants; motion as if same was not filed at all and order the trial of this case proceeded,” said Cllr. Mulbah in response to the defense motion to dismiss the indictment.