Monrovia – Lawyers representing the legal interest of indicted Grand Cape Munt County Senator, Cllr. Varney Sherman, recently found guilty and fined by the Monrovia City Court at the Temple of Justice in a response to the Writ of Summons for Contempt of Court have denied what they described as factual allegations contained in the Writ of Summons.
In their response, the lawyers including Counsellors Moses Paegar, Albert Sims, Golda Elliot, Frank Musa Dean and Cyril Jones indicated that as to the allegations contained in the Writ of Summons to the effect that they obstructed the execution of the Writ of Search and Seizure at the residence of Cllr. Sherman, it is untrue, noting that they were not present at the Cllr. Sherman’s residence when the Ministerial officers of the Court went to conduct the search and seizure.
“Defendants further submit that this allegation is contrary to and inconsistent with the Returns of Capt. Julius B. Swen, which states that upon their arrival at the residence of Cllr. Sherman there was very strong resistance from thousands of Unity Party partisans chanting slogan”, stated the lawyers.
The lawyers stated that there is nowhere in the Returns of the Ministerial officer where it is stated that they (lawyers) denied the court officers access to Cllr. Sherman’s residence and hence obstructed the execution of the Writ of Search and Seizure.
Narrating further, the lawyers stated “That as to the service and execution of the Writ of Search and Seizure at the premises of Sherman & Sherman, Inc., Defendants say that on May 23, at about 4:00 pm about five (5) officers from the Monrovia City Court appeared at Sherman & Sherman Inc., accompanied by three individuals who identified themselves as personnel of the Ministry of State for Presidential Affairs (hereinafter the “Ministry of State” for brevity”) and members of the Presidential Task Force. One of such individuals was Mr. Samuel Nimely (commonly known as “PI”).
These individuals insisted that they aid or assist the Court Officers in the execution of the Writ of Search and Seizure.
Defendants objected to the participation of the individuals who had identified themselves as staffers of the Ministry of State and members of the Presidential Task Force in the conduct of the search and seizure on grounds that the Writ was not directed at these individuals, but at the Ministerial officers.
After much consideration, Mr. Nimely and the other two personnel of the Ministry of State left the building and the Ministerial Officers commenced the search”.
The defendants contended that the Returns of Capt. Julius Swen that he was accompanied by officials of the Court took third parties along with them to execute the Writ of Search and Seizure-a conduct which is not allowed under the law.
Citing the relevant law, the defendants indicated that under Liberia’s Criminal procedure Law, the only instance in which a court officer or peace officer is allowed to employ the assistance of third parties is when an arrest is being effected and the arrestee has resisted the arrest.
“That as to the execution of the Writ of Search and Seizure served on Sherman & Sherman, Inc., the Defendants deny that they obstructed the execution of same. Defendants say that it is important that the scope and purpose of the Writ in order to put the matter into perspective.
The Writ required the Officers to search the premises of Sherman & Sherman for the purpose of “finding thereat communications (print and electronic), report in any form or manner of disbursements of funds received from Sable Mining toward the passage of the current Public Procure & Concession Commission Act as reported in the Global Witness report of May 2016; computers and laptops used to communicate and/or generate reports (s) touching on the provision, receipt & disbursement of the funds from Sable Mining are believed to be kept”, the lawyers continued.
Responding to count three, the lawyers stated that at no time did they object to and/or prevent the execution of the Writ of Search and Seizure.
They argued “On the contrary, Defendant say that it was Capt. Julius Swen who in violation of law, continued to communicate with the individuals who had identified themselves as personnel of the Ministry of State and/or members of the Presidential Task Force and took direction from these individuals to the point where these individuals had officers of the Liberia National Police enter upon Sherman & Sherman’s premises”.
The lawyers denied in entirety the allegations contained in the Writ of Summons, stating that they are all lawyers who have been engaged in the practice of law for more than ten to twenty years in the jurisdiction and are fully cognizant of the oath as taken by them as lawyers to uphold the law and protect the dignity of the Honorable Court.
“Wherefore and in view of the foregoing, defendants pray. You Honor to purge them of Contempt and dismiss the allegations contained in the Writ of Summons, and grant into Defendants all other and further relief which Your Honor may deem just, legal and equitable in the premises”, the lawyers prayed the Court
The Monrovia City Court still found the lawyers guilty on contempt charges.
Presiding Magistrate, Kennedy Peabody in his Tuesday’s ruling ordered the five guilty lawyers to pay into government revenue the amount of L$10,000 each and present laptops and computers in their possession to the court immediately or they would be detained at the Monrovia Central Prison for three days.
Before giving his ruling, presiding Magistrate Kennedy Peabody indicated that unless the court is respected, lawyers can never be respected in the community because the responsibility of the court gives relevance to lawyers.
“This court is of the mind that the defendants herein were simply trying to protect the interest of their client but so doing, they should have known that they also hold the court greater responsibility,” said Magistrate Peabody whose ruling was accepted by Cllr. Frank Musa Dean.
Power to determine contempt
A lawyer told FrontPageAfrica that the power to determine what is contemptuous and to admeasure punishment for same is likened to the power of a father, as head of his household, to determine what conduct is acceptable in the home.
One lawyer who did not want to be named told FPA “A child can only pray that in the exercise of his discretion, the father will be rational and not permit the love for one of his children to supersede and overpower his sense of fairness and reasoning. And even if he did, what can the affected child do?”