Primary Duty of Public Prosecution Is Not To Convict But To See Justice Done
The primary duty of a public prosecution is not to convict, but to see that justice is done. In other words, Justice Banks giving the impression that it is a forgone conclusion, there is absolutely no possibility of the evidence allegedly collected from the prosecuting or the key material witness Heine van Nierkerk could be fake or forged documents hacked into the defendant´s email box; hence must be marked permanently; the denial of a defendant´s right to confrontation and cross-examination (Article 21 h of the Liberian Constitution) of the key Prosecuting Witness (Heine van Nierkerk), the strange reassignment of the judge, and the seeming inadvertent disregard of a Judge´s rights and powers to exclude evidence, on the one hand, and on the other, the prosecution failure to acknowledge its duty and obligation to disclose information and facts (surprisingly supported by Justice Philip Banks) are in our view highly reprehensible! That is:
Amid the strange reassignment of the judge in the GW case, and the possibility and highly likeliness of hackers hacking into the defendant´s email box and planting fake or forged evidences(email and spreadsheets into the defendant´s email box), Justice Philip Banks´ declaring as “an error” Judge Yemie Gbeisay´s refusal to mark such as permanent these very emails and spreadsheets from a prosecuting witness-the most material witness (Heine van Niekerk), who does not want to face in court those he has accused, and Justice Banks´ seeming disregard of Judge Gbeisay´s constitutional rights and powers to exclude evidences he ( Judge Gbeisay) believes may be intended to mislead the court are, in our view highly reprehensible, considering the fact that inter alia :
The relevance of evidence is simply ordinarily a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for the admissibility of evidence; since in fact, it is common knowledge that once a judge discovers or even suspects, that evidence produced by a party may have been obtained illegally or may be forged or fake document intended to mislead the court (as seems to be the case of the documents under question), it becomes the responsibility of the judge to exclude such evidence.
That Associate Justice Banks claims that he “did not see that the delivery of the documents to the state by a person who was legally in possession of said documents can be a violation of any of the constitutional rights of the defendants”, is an inadvertent conclusion, since in this age of terror on the internet, the possibility of those very emails been hacked into the defendant´s email box is highly likely, hence cannot be said to be “legally in the possession” of anyone”!
Another strange error on the part of Justice Banks is his argument that “The state was authorized to do whatsoever they wanted to do with such documents as they pleased, including rights to privacy or against searches and seizures, and the release of such document to its investigation team did not require an order of the court to make the transfer illegal.” We categorically disagree!!! Justice Banks!!!:For:
Under the rule of the prosecution duty to disclose, the state´s role in criminal proceedings is diligent prosecution of violation of its laws, with a concomitant duty not to persecute suspected offenders (a persecution made clear here on the part of Justice Banks and the prosecution)!That is:
The prosecution for the state, which has at its disposal a vast reservoir of resources and means to investigate criminal violations, is not at liberty to misuse or distort the facts and information available to them. For:
It (the prosecution-the state) is obligated to disclose matters that relieve or tend to relieve the accused of responsibility, and that obligation arises not only under the canons of ethics of the legal profession, but from a higher duty of justice imposed by the requirements of due process for the assurance of a fair trial at least vis a vis the equal protection and the confrontation clauses required and authorized by common law statutes, its jurisprudence, and by the Liberian Constitution! So:
This idea of both the prosecution and Justice Banks giving the impression that it is a forgone conclusion, there is absolutely no possibility of the evidence allegedly collected from the prosecuting or the key material witness Heine van Nierkerk could be fake or forged documents hacked into the defendant´s email box, hence must be marked permanently are
Tantamount to the suppression and manufacturing of facts, and indeed, highly reprehensible as is the state´s or the prosecution´s denial of the defendant´s right to face to face confrontation and cross-examination of his key accuser-the prosecuting witness Heine van Nierkerk, for:
Whichever-be it conviction or acquittal, contrary to popular belief, the primary duty of both the public prosecution and the court is not to convict but to see that justice is done!