Monrovia – Chief Justice Francis Korkpor has denied a petition from lawyers representing Associate Justice Kabineh J’aneh, requesting the head of the judiciary branch to recuse himself from the ongoing impeachment trial of Associate Justice J’aneh citing conflict of interest issues.
Henry Karmo, [email protected]
In a petition last Wednesday, Justice J’aneh moved for Chief Justice Korkpor to recuse himself from presiding over the hearing “in the interest of justice and fair play”. The Supreme Court last Wednesday ruled into a Writ of Prohibition filed by four Senators who claimed the Senate was leading wrongly in the impeachment proceeding. However, the petitioned was denied due to procedural error on the part of the Senators.
Justice J’aneh argued that a Justice is required to recuse himself/herself when that case is brought before the Supreme Court or, a Justice is required to recuse himself/herself from a case his relative is involved, or where the Justice is on record to have taken a position with respect to a particular case….”
Justice J’aneh reference the Supreme Court in case Republic of Liberia versus H. Lafafette Harmon which was decided on December 22,1936 and opined as follows: “The Principles of impartiality and disinterestedness and fairness on the part of the judge are as old as the history of courts of justice and it those three cardinal principles supposed to exists which give credit and tolerance to the decrees of judicial tribunal.”
Associate Justice J’aneh further argued in his petition that that the Amended Bill of Impeachment, specifically count nine (9) thereof, averred that the Supreme Court was manipulated in dismissing the appeal in the Constance’s case which, according to the House of Representatives, could not traditionally and customarily be dismissed. “The head of the Supreme Court now the 1st Respondent who participated and signed the judgment in the Constance Case subject of the Bill of Impeachment certainly cannot preside over the trial growing out said Bill of Impeachment as he is conflicted. Hence, the request for your recusal in presiding over these proceedings.”
But in his ruling Tuesday, the Chief Justice opined that he sees no reason for him to recuse himself, stating: “A conflict of interest arises when the considerations of a party is to the detriment of another party. Certainly I see no issue of private pecuniary interest involved here.”
The Chief Justice further asked: “Is it a conflict of interest for the Supreme Court to meticulously apply the law passed by the Legislature? Can one be adjudged liable or guilty for applying the law? The answer is no. Therefore, I committed no conflict of interest when I, along with three other Justices signed the Judgment Without Opinion in favor of the Movant for the failure of Madam Constance to have perfected her appeal.”
More importantly, the Chief Justice asked: “How am I “conflicted” from the standpoint of the Movant because of the Judgment I signed in the Constance Case? After all the Judgment in question, though not on the merits of the case, inure to the benefit of the Movant. So, for all intents and purposes, the Movant should not be the one raising the issue of conflict, even if any.”
The impeachment saga stems from complaints filed by two members of the lower house of the national legislature, Rep. Moses Accarous Gray(CDC, District No. 8, Montserrado) and Thomas Fallah(CDC, District No. 5, Montserrado) against Justice Ja’neh alleging that the Associate Justice usurped his function in a land case involving the late J. Nyemah Constance Jr.
Records from the Civil Law Court and the Supreme Court show that Justice Ja’neh legally purchased a parcel of land from John Nyemah Constance Jr in 1996. Constance Jr. was issued Letters of Administration to administer the property owned by his father, the late John Nyemah Constance Sr.
Constance Jr., under the signature of Judge John L. Greaves who later became Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, issued Constance Jr. a Court Decree of Sale, to sell the piece of land.
On Tuesday, Chief Justice Korkpor said, the key deciding factor in the request for his recusal is whether the Justice has made a decision or a pronouncement on the merits of the case. “It goes without saying, therefore, that since the Supreme Court did not decide the Constance Case on its merits I, as one of the concurring Justices in that case, have expressed no view and taken no position on the merits of the said case that will work prejudice to the Movant by my presiding over this impeachment trial.”
The Chief Justice added: “The Movant has contended that it will amount to conflict of interest if I preside over this case; and that because I signed the Judgment in the Constance Case, I am “conflicted”. When used to suggest disqualification of a public official from performing his sworn duty, the term “conflict of interest” refers to a clash between public interest and the private pecuniary interest of the individual concern. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition. Based on what I have said and given the circumstance of this Motion to Recuse, I hold that the Movant has not established any legal and/or factual ground for me to recuse myself. The Motion to Recuse is therefore denied and dismissed. IT IS hereby so ordered.”
Full Report and Analysis to Follow Shortly