Indian National Bharati Vatwani and her daughter recently staged a peaceful protest at the Capitol Building in Monrovia against what she called the unlawful denial of her husband entry into the country by authorities of the Liberia Immigration Service (LIS).
The wife of Manoj Kumar, resident of Monrovia, Madam Vatwani, said the peaceful protest was intended to draw the attention of the Government of Liberia (GoL), particularly members of the Legislature regarding the ‘unlawful act’ being meted out against her husband by authorities of the LIS.
“For two years now, my daughter and I have not been united with my husband who is currently in neighboring Freetown, Sierra Leone. I want him return to Liberia to face whatever charges that have been levied against him,” the aggrieved Indian woman told journalists.
However, the lawmakers said they will follow up with the relevant authorities including the Ministry of Justice and the LIS concerning the ‘unlawful denial’ of her husband entry into the country by authorities of the LIS.
It can be recalled that last year, Mr. Kumar, through his legal counsel, the Supuwood and Associates Law Offices, formally filed a petition for a writ of prohibition before J. Kennedy Peabody, Resident Circuit Court Judge, Civil Law Court for Montserrasdo County, praying for a judgement granting his petition, undoing and reversing the wrongful judgement of the lower court, thereby permitting him(petitioner) to return to the country of his residency(Liberia), reunite with his family and friends, further grant unto him-Petitioner the right to defend himself against the purported indictment issued against him and award unto petitioner such other relief as the court may deem just and equitable.
It can also be recalled that the petitioner, who has resided in Liberia peacefully for 21 years without any molestation, traveled out of Liberia for business and family matters. Upon his return on September 14, 2021, authorities at the Roberts International Airport (RIA) in Margibi County refused him entry into the country as he disembarked out of the plane.
His wife and little daughter, along with friends, who had gathered at the RIA to welcome him, were confused as to what had actually happened, only to see him being led back into the plane, which took off as usual.
According to cogent court documents in possession of this paper, during the 21 years of residency within the Republic of Liberia, the Petitioner has observed and obeyed the laws of the Republic of Liberia and has particularly enjoyed the kind hospitality of the Government and People of Liberia.
“This is why he is confused and wondering as to the probable cause(s) leading to the manner and treatment meted out to him by refusing him entry into a country where has spent the past 21 years of his life, investing practically all that he has and being whisked off into a plan to land in Ghana where had no intention of going, neither knows anyone there. He had to hang around at an airport hotel in Accra to arrange another flight back to India,” the court documents obtained by this paper, asserted.
“That as a result of the refusal to allow him entry into Liberia, the Petitioner via his lawyer, J. Laveli Supuwood, instituted a Petition for Declarative Judgement at the Civil Law Court for Montserrado County, naming the Commissioner of the Liberia Immigration Service as Respondent. A writ of summon was issued out and several accordingly,” the court document further asserted.
In his returns to the referenced petition, the LIS, who was represented by the former Solicitor General of Liberia, Sayma Syrenius Cephus, attached copy of an indictment for forgery against the petitioner, claiming that the petitioner is a security risk. He also attached copy of a photo of petitioner herein standing by Montserrado County Senator Abraham D. Dillon as evidence that the petitioner is a criminal.
But further to county five, the petitioner maintains that the purported indictment is fabricated, false, deceptive and totally misleading against which the petitioner has the right to defend himself because under the Liberian Law, when a person is indicted, whether or not in his absence, the law requires that he be notified to appear and defend himself. Section 21(b) of the constitution of the Republic of Liberia-which is the supreme law of the land states plainly that:
‘‘every person suspected or accused of committing a crime shall immediately upon arrest be informed in detail of the charges, of the right to remain silent, and of the fact that any statement made could be used against him in a court of law.’’
Further to count five and six, the petitioner states that an indictment has been presented against him by the former Solicitor General of Liberia. Hence, he has the right to come and defend himself and that he can never live in peace and good conscience anywhere in the world under an indictment for a crime he did not commit. According to him, the Republic of Liberia owes him the duty to provide a forum wherein he can defend himself and his family name.
“This is the law in all civilized nations and is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December, 1948; The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the African Charter on Human and People Rights, Moreover, section 21 of the Constitution of Liberia mandates that a person accused of committing a crime shall have the right to public, speedy and impartial trial.
The Petitioner maintains that in order to exercise this fundamental right, he should be allowed entry into the country where he is alleged to have committed the crime so that he may exercise his right to confrontation also guaranteed under section 21(g)of the Liberian Constitution. It would be an affront to any motion of good conscience, utterly unfair and uncivilized to charge him for committing a crime without allowing him a hearing to defend himself,” continued the court documents.
However, the Petitioner points out that these issues were squarely raised in the Civil Law Court for Montserrado County, but inn his ruling, Judge Peabody declared, “Even though the parties raised several issues, this court will only pass on those that are relevant to the determination of this petition.” By this declaration, Judge Peabody ignored the issues of fundamental rights as outlined above and therefore ruled.
