By Precious D. Freeman
The Supreme Court deferred three attorneys’ applications for admission as counselors to October 2027.
Investigative analysis conducted proved that the applicants’ documents were not dishonest and fake documents as is being claimed by the bar to qualify for admission before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in an opinion deferred three lawyers’ applications for admission to that body as Counselors-at-Law not until October 15, 2027, following the Friday, June 14, 2024 admission of some 31 qualified attorneys.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Jamessetta Howard Wolokolie, the Supreme Court believed attorneys were dishonest in their application while requesting the five years required by the statute.
The court ruled placing a US$500 each fine on the counselors who signed the attorneys’ petitions and their affidavits for their failure to do due diligence on the lawyers’ petitions.
Contrary to the court’s ruling and the independent investigation’s findings, the three lawyers submitted their documents before the Supreme Court consistent with the first paragraph of the court’s ruling under section 17.6 of the New Judicial Law and that the attorneys were cleared by the Supreme Court before the court submitted their names to the examiner’s committee for evaluation for admission.
Some of the attorneys who were admitted informed this paper that for the attorneys to be qualified, the examination committee subjected all applicants to obtain a clearance from the Grievance and Ethics Committee, the local and National Bars Associations indicating that they were free from all ethical problems, and were in good standing with their various bars before writing the exam.
The clearance obtained from the National Bar Association read, “This letter is to confirm that the Attorney is an outstanding member of the Liberia National Bar Association (LNBA), who is in good standing and has obtained his license for 2024.”
The Ethics Committee clearance also read, “After a careful perusal of our records and case dockets, I am pleased to verify that Attorney has not had any complaint or investigation involving him and before the Grievance and Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court and there is also no matter pending against him.”
The Committee hereby finds the Attorney to be in good standing” while the local Bars Good Standing Certificate read, “This is to certify that Attorney…….., is a member of our county bar in Good Standing for the year 2024.”
These clearances were reviews consistent with the second paragraph of the court’s ruling which states, “In consonance with section 17.6 the court having reviewed the petitioners petitions submitted, praying for the admission of the attorneys to the Supreme Court Bar, and the court being satisfied that the petitioners had met the requirements set, had the names of the approved petitioners forwarded to the two committees; the Ethics Committee and the National Board of Examiners Committee.”
While we respect the Supreme Court ruling, we conversely disagree with the court that the attorneys were dishonest in their applications. How could the attorneys be dishonest when their petitions were approved by counselors of the Supreme Court Bar and the same was rectified by the Supreme Court Bench through its review process before submitting lawyers’ names for evaluation?
Others are of the view that the fact that the Supreme Court cleared the attorneys, they should not have been subjected to any other scrutiny because that is the highest court in the land and its decision is final.
“The attorneys were subjected to 13-page ethical questions before sitting the exam while they were also charged US$1, 200 each for examination fee before writing the bar exam; how then can such attorneys be dishonest while applying for the Bar Exam when an application is just a simple question to ascertain whether one is qualify or not for a post and in this case to be a counselor at the bar, What does the law requires for admission of Attorneys At Law to the Supreme Court Bar and what are the requirements,” their colleagues imputed.
The first paragraph of the court’s ruling set it out all. Paragraph one stipulates under Title 17 Section 17 .6” of the New Judiciary Law of Liberia that “any attorney who has been actively engaged in the practice of law for five years may submit a petition to the Supreme Court showing his moral and professional qualifications for membership in the Bar of the Supreme Court and praying for admission as counselor of that Court.”
The law only requires that an attorney who has been actively engaged in the practice of law for five years, not after five years. Some senior lawyers contacted during our independent investigation said that five years means an attorney can apply in their five years and not necessarily after five years with a show of proof.
In this case, the only show of proof for an active practice of law for five years is the attorney’s five licenses. Again, speaking under condition of anonymity to this paper, some of the newly admitted attorneys, said primarily, that the only show of proof for active practice of law is the attorneys’ five licenses for the five years and the certificate that contains a date of admission.
According to the lawyers, this can be followed by a certificate of their good standing from the LNBA, the local or county bar, as well as a clearance from the Grievance and Ethics Committee which were all acquired by the attorneys and the attorney petitions which must be approved by two practicing counselors.
The investigation further revealed that under section 17.6 of the New Judiciary Law, “If the Supreme Court accepts the petitions, the Chief Justice shall appoint a committee of at least three counselors of the Supreme Court who, as soon as convenient, shall examine the petitioners and report in writing on their moral and professional qualifications to the Chief Justice.”
The statute further provides that “the petitioner shall take and satisfactorily pass a written examination on questions which a lawyer in practice before the Supreme Court may reasonably expect to meet, which shall be prepared and conducted by the National Board of Bar Examiners.”
It was also discovered that the attorneys also submitted six copies of their petitions with one to each justice for their perusal before they were cleared. The petitions spent five months with the justices before being approved.
The court charged the attorneys for applying before time and ruled that their next application before that court be deferred for two years and that they can only apply on October 15, 2027.
But logically, the attorneys are es-topped from applying for the Supreme Court test for three years given that the test will be run annually from 2024 to 2026 and can only apply in 2027.
The fundamental principle of law is that all accused persons must be accorded due process which is heard before it is condemned. Unlike in other previous cases like Atty. Julius Addy and even Cllr. Nwanbudike, a foreign national, was accorded due process, but the investigation found out that the attorneys were not given any due process in this matter.
Article 20 (a) of the 1986 Constitution stipulates that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, security of the person, property, privilege or any other right except as the outcome of a hearing judgment consistent with the provisions laid down in this Constitution and by due process of law.”
Now the most astonishing and frustrating aspect during the reporters’ investigation was that the affected lawyers were reluctant to speak to journalists on the issue at bar.
