Monrovia – Ongoing human trafficking case at Criminal Court “A” at the Temple of Justice, has taken a twist, following a petition for a Writ of Certiorari filed by Defendant Sawo King Zubah, to the Supreme Court, against Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie as first respondent and the Ministry of Justice as second respondent.
By Willie N. Tokpah
Defendant Zubah in his petition before the high court, is contending, that Judge Willie is “wrongly proceeding” in the ongoing matter, while the Ministry of Justice, which is prosecuting the matter is also carrying out a series of legal missteps which Judge Willie is endorsing.
Therefore, the Defense team, headed by Cllr. Jimmy Bomboo is seeking the Supreme Court’s legal endeavor to review Judge Willie’s decision to grant the prosecution request for subpoena ad testifcadum to be issued on both Orange and Lonestar Cell GSM Companies.
A subpoena ad testificandum is a court summons to appear and give oral testimony for use at a hearing or trial.
The request, according to a court document in the possession of FrontPageAfrica, grew out of the prosecution’s first witness, Lisa Hawa Kellie’s testimony that she interacted with only Defendant Zubah during the alleged trafficking saga, while Defendant noted that Lisa had interacted with two persons, James who gave private prosecutrix her visa and traveling ticket, and a lady by the name
of Muna, with whom Lisa Hawa Kollie discussed, and had the arrangement to travel with to
Oman.
Defense is arguing that the fact that the 2nd Respondent, Ministry of Justice objection on the ground that the pendant did not notify the Prosecution by providing the mentioned documents sought to be admitted before the ongoing trial, and that Judge Willie granted the objection of the prosecution, and denied the Petitioner/Defendant the right to identify the pictorial evidence testified to by the Defendant Zubah, is a denial of his right and constitute a petition for Certiorari at the high court.
In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency.
The Defendant is praying the Supreme Court review “procedure errors” made during the proceeding.
According to Defense, turned prosecutor, Zubah, the writ of certiorari was for the following factual and legal reasons:
“Petitioner says that he has been accused of the crimes of Trafficking in Persons and Theft of Property, and the matter is currently being prosecuted at the First Judicial Circuit, Criminal Court “A,” and that during the trial proceeding in the court, the Prosecution’s principal witness, private prosecutrix Lisa Hawa Kollie informed the trial jury that before her being allegedly trafficked to Oman, she had had interaction with no one except the Petitioner/Defendant in these proceedings Predicated upon the statement made by the private prosecutrix, Lisa Kollie, the Petitioner/Defendant (Sawo King Zubah) took the witness stand and informed the court that the private prosecutrix had met with two persons, James who gave the private prosecutrix her visa and traveling ticket, and a lady by the name of Muna with whom Lisa Hawa Kollie discussed, and had the arrangement to travel with to Oman. To authenticate the Petitioner/Defendant testimony of the private prosecutrix, interactions with the named individuals, Petitioner/Defendant was given pictorial evidence testified to for identification.”
The petitioners asserted that the laws and practices under this jurisdiction require pleadings to be exchanged in civil proceedings with evidence attached to said pleadings.
Furthermore, their petition maintained that in criminal proceedings, the laws and practices hoary with ages, require the Prosecution to present evidence it relies on Defendant to enable the said Defendant to adequately prepare his/her against the evidence to be presented in court by the prosecution.
It further that contrarily, the laws and practice under this jurisdiction put no burden on the Defendant to present to the Prosecution evidence Defendant relies upon in its defense.
“The law authorizes the Prosecution to provide rebuttal witness if the Defendant produces or provides testimonial evidence which the prosecution viewed is untrue or misleading,” the petition noted.
“Additionally, testimony or in the court below, the Respondents presented the police charge sheet as an ally, the matter evidence to Petitioner/Defendant before trial, and the said police characterization only contains the statement of the private prosecutrix to enable the Defendant not appreciation or what the private prosecutrix would testify to.”
Petitioner/Defendant is complaining that the action of the Respondent contravenes the laws of the Republic to allow the Petition to identify and confirm the pictorial evidence.
More so, it said assuming and not admitting that the prosecution ground stated was proper, the First Respondent is only permitted to deny the evidence if the same is presented to First Respondent, judge for marking, and not when it is presented to the Petitioner/Defendant for identification.
Petitioner also recognized that during the trial proceeding, the private prosecutrix denied knowing Siah, and also denied having interaction with Munah and James to be identified and that predicated upon the private prosecutrix testimony, Petitioner prays the trial court for a subpoena ad testifcadum and subpoena duces tecum to be issued on the Orange Liberia network and Lonestar GSM Company to establish whether there had been no interaction or communication between the private prosecutrix and the named individuals by GSM communication.
Moreover, the petition said the request for subpoena which the Second Respondent objected to, and the court granted the objection to the request for a subpoena on grounds that Petitioner did not state the specific period, the communication subpoena should cover and the failure to state a specific period is not a ground to deny a subpoena.
However, it noted that assuming and not admitting, an order for modification, would have been the best decision, and a denial of the request for a subpoena.
Therefore, Petitioner prays the Supreme Court to review and correct the attached decision of the First Respondent in the proceeding.
At the same time, Petitioner recounted that during the trial in the lower court, an application was made by Petitioner for a testimony of Monue Flomo who is currently in Oman to be taken since the said named traveled along with the private prosecutrix and the two of them processed their documents to travel to Oman.
The petition explained: “This application was objected to by the Two Respondent, and same was granted by the First Respondent. The First Respondent in his ruling denied the application and intimated that the said application should have been made before trial, and not during the trial.”
“Petitioner says that it is impossible to know the kind of witness(es) a Defendant will want
to testify on his/her behalf if the prosecution witness(es) did not testify. Petitioner says that it upon the testimony of the prosecution witness that Petitioner/Defendant requested that
testimony of Monue Flome be taken to provide the Petitioner/Defendant justice.”
Additionally, the petition added that the decision of the First Respondent is not supported by law.
Citing the Criminal
Procedure Law, Section 17.1.1, the request let out, that a prospective witness may be unable to attend or may be prevented from attending a trial or hearing, that his testimony is material, and that it is necessary to take his deposition in order to prevent a failure of justice, the court, any time after the filing of a complaint or an the indictment, upon motion made upon notice to the other parties, may order that his testimony be taken by deposition and that any designated books, papers, documents, or portable things, not privileged, be produced at the same time and place.
Meanwhile, the Petitioner wants the Supreme Court to issue the appropriate writ(s) on Judge Willie and the Ministry of Justice, and further review and correct the errors made by them and to grant all that is just, equitable, and legal.