By Grace Q. Bryant
Retired Chief Justice Francis Korkpor has dissented on the ruling made by three Associate Justices in the Amos Brosius Vs Judge Eva Mappy Morgan’s case that was pending at the Supreme Court.
Justice Korkpor stated that his disagreement is based on fundamental principles of law and the judicial Canons.
“I believe that the conclusion reached by the majority of this court in this case is wrong. They have found that the respondent Judge is blameless on all counts and I sincerely disagree. I am unable to go along with my colleagues at this time and this is why I have withheld my signature from the judgment growing out of the majority opinion,” the Chief Justice expressed.
According to him, it is true that majority opinions have indicated but the case was witnessed over time, relentless of the negative reporting from the media with allegations of corruption, theft and other acts of improprieties against the Commercial Judge.
“Let me from the onset be categorical and say that while I do not agree that the respondent judge is totally absolved of all wrong doing in this case as my colleagues have found, I see no evidence in the records that she withdrew or ordered the withdrawal of money from the account of the complainant as alleged in complaint and widely speculated and circulated by the media,” he maintained.
He explained that a petition filed by MOTC at the Commercial Court alleged that the proceeds of petroleum products amounting to US$ 8,000,000 were not accounted for by Amos Brosius as General Manager of Ducor Petroleum and MOTC also filed a motion for preliminary injunction to prohibit Brosius from exercising any rights and privileges as General Manager.
He maintained that sitting alone as a judge of the Commercial Court, the Chief Judge Eva Mappy- Morgan ordered the issuance of the temporary restraining order (TRO) which served on Brosius enjoining and prohibiting him from acting or exercising any rights and privileges as Manager as of on July 17, 2013, adding that at the time Brosius had in his possession seven checks amounting of US$ 212,704.36 issued to Ducor Petroleum which he refused to deposit in the account of the company on grounds that MOTC will withdraw and utilize the checks to its advantage.
The CJ further explained that he filed his return to the petition for preliminary injunction along with a motion to vacate the TRO backed by a valid bond, therefore no hearing was had on the motion for preliminary injunction and the motion to vacate the TRO by operation of law, the TRO lapsed after ten days.
He said that the Respondent Judge should have conducted a hearing with all the parties present to determine the necessity of a quick action as provided for under the Judicial Canon # 23 before lifting the freeze.
“To the contrary, she acted on the letter requesting that the freeze on the account be lifted was written on July 22, 2013 and the Judge on the next day on July 23, 2013 granted the request without a hearing and lifted the freeze on the account,” he added.
CJ emphasized that the action of the respondent Judge constitutes a clear violation of Judicial Canon 23 & 24 for which a penalty should attach.
“Judicial Canon #39 provides that the penalty for violating any provision of the Judicial Canon shall be fine, suspension, impeachment or prosecution in a court of law according to the gravity of the violation,” he noted.
“I believe that to totally vindicate the respondent judge as the majority of my colleagues have done in is an error. By their decision today, my colleagues have given freedom to trial court judges to carry out ex parte proceedings not in line with Judicial #23& 24,” he revealed.
