Gov’t. Fails To Appear In Ellen Corkrum, Others’ Case

By Grace Q. Bryant
Government of Liberia (GOL) has failed to appear in court to argue the petition for Writ Exeat Republica on Ellen Corkrum, Musa Bility and others in the City Court.
Ellen Corkrum, Melvin Johnson, Musa Bility, Momar Dieng, Jeremi Tegli, Justin Oguagua, John B. S. Davis and Gloria Manor were charged with the crimes of Economic Sabotage, Theft of Property, Criminal Conspiracy, and Misapplication of entrusted properly.
It can be recalled that a petition for writ of Ne Exeat Republica was filed by the Prosecution pray to the court stating that the defendants are about to leave the bailiwick of the Republic to foreign parts much to the surprise of the plaintiff.
Prosecution maintained that the Magistrate having been duly satisfied upon an application filed by the plaintiff orderED a Writ of Ne Exeat Republica issued.
In resistance, Co-Respondent Musa Bility filed a 27 counts petition pray the court to deny and dismiss petitioner’s petition and quash the Writ of Ne Exeat Republica for following legal and factual reason.
According to Co-Respondent Bility, the request and subsequent issuance of Writ of Ne Exeat Republica against him violates his fundamental rights to move freely and to leave from the Republic of Liberia in Article.13 (a) (b) of the constitution of Liberia, the petitioner’s petition lacks legal basis and should not be entertained.
The resistance revealed that the petitioner failed and neglected to prove and prosecute the charges and causing Co-Respondent Bility enormous embarrassment and reputational harm, due to petitioner’s neglect in prosecuting the case, all charges against him were dismissed to confirmative with section 18.3 of the criminal procedure Law.
Defendant Musa Bility and others were indicted by the Grand jury for Montserrado County during the May term, 2013. The record showed that Musa Bility had been served the writ of arrest along with the indictment and brought Before the court while Ellen Corkrum and others had not been served with the indictment to be brought before the jurisdiction of the court.
The court ruling on the motion to dismiss indictment revealed that prosecution failed and neglected to proceed with the case within two terms of court required by section 18.2 of the criminal procedure law. So the indictment is granted and dismissed without prejudice to the state in confirmative with section 18.3.