Monrovia – Criminal Court ‘A’ at the Temple of Justice is seeking assistance from the Liberia National Bar Association (LNBA) to provide pro-bono legal services for the defendant in an alleged trafficking in person and theft of property case after Public Defense Lawyer Sennay Carlor was rejected. Defendant Sawo King Zubah has rejected the representation of Cllr. Sennay Carlor for public defense and noted that he is unable to provide a private lawyer to plead with him. In open court, Defendant Zubah stated, “right now I cannot say I will be able to say I can provide lawyers, I will confirm from my parent.”
By Victoria G Wesseh, Contributing Writer
On March 7, the office of the Coordinator for Public Defense received a communication from the resident first Judicial Circuit Criminal Court ‘A’ judge Roosevelt Z. Willie, informing them that the defendant in the proceedings had rejected the representation of Cllr. Sennay Carlor.
Defense lawyers were troubled upon receiving the communication because Defendant Zubah, in the case, is indigent, and they are reluctant to represent him because Cllr. Carlos worked with the Office of Public Defense, which Cllr. T. Joseph Debbleh is heading. Cllr. Debbleh stated that it would be a conflict of interest if the defendant rejects one public defender, and another public defender comes to represent him.
The public defender lawyer requested the court to advise the defendant to procure a private lawyer other than the office of Public Defense to represent him. The public defender told the court that this application is made in good faith to avoid conflict, assuming without admitting, the case will get to the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court is the boss of the public defense program. According to the public defender, they will not have an answer to the question that will come from the Supreme Court bench regarding their representation.
Based on the information provided, the court indicated that in the interest of justice and fair play for the defendant to have due process of law, it will write to the Liberia National Bar Association (LNBA), where some lawyers render pro-bono services to party litigants that find themselves in such a situation as Defendant Zubah.
Judge Roosevelt Willie further ordered the clerk of court to communicate with the President of the Liberia National Bar Association (LNBA), Cllr. Sylvester D. Rennie, to provide defendant representation through pro-bono services. However, following Judge Willie’s order, the matter was suspended and expected to continue based on assignment after the court would have received a response from the LNBA.
The defendant was indicted after it was reported that in February 2022, Defendant Sawo King Zubah and co-defendant Sarah (to be identified) allegedly influenced state victim Lisa Mangha to hand over US$250.00 plus other monies, offering to transport her to Oman, Asia under the pretense that she would work to receive a salary that would change her life.
Accordingly, both of them met, and the defendant decided to request the victim for her transport to process her travel documents, and that agent fees had to be paid, an amount which the victim reportedly paid to the defendant Zubah in the Paynesville area.
The indictment further noted that after that process, upon the arrival of the victim in Oman, she was met by co-defendant Sarah (to be identified), who immediately seized her traveling documents, including her passport. Thereafter, Lisa Mangha was taken to several places for work, subjected to degrading and inhumane treatment by individuals she worked for.
Furthermore, the indictment maintained that the victim was forced to work long days after 12 or more hours, without any break, was not paid for any of her work, and was sexually assaulted as well as raped while at one of the work, locations.
According to the indictment, “the victim and her family members communicated and attempted communication with the defendant and co-defendant, advising them about the deplorable and inhumane work environment and treatment and her being assaulted, and that the defendant and co-defendant did nothing for a long period”.
It is further averred that the defendant and co-defendant were repeatedly admonished and told of the horrible treatment, nonpayment for work, and other maltreatment of the victim, yet still, nothing was done by the defendant to remedy or stop the said exploitation of the victim.