The Supreme Court Justice presiding in Chambers, Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, on January 2, 2025, ordered the Judge of Criminal Court ‘C’ at the Temple of Justice and defendant Samuel D. Tweah, former Finance Minister, and others to respond to the government lawyers’ petition for a Writ of Certiorari filed on December 23, 2024.
The Supreme Court mandate read:
“You are hereby commanded to notify His Honor A. Blamo Dixon, Resident Circuit Judge, First Judicial Circuit, Criminal Assizes “C”, Temple of Justice, Judicial Branch. R/L, Samuel Tweah. Former Minister of Finance & Development Planning, Cllr. Nyenati Tuan, Former Acting Minister of Justice. Stanley S. Ford, Former Director of Financial Intelligence Agency. D. Moses P. Cooper. Former Comptroller Financial Intelligence Agency, and Jefferson Karmon. Former National Security Advisor, Liberia, Respondents in the above-entitled cause of action, to appear (by filing their returns) before His Honor Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, Sr., Associate Justice of the Honorable Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia, presiding in Chambers, at the Supreme Court Room, Temple of Justice, on/or before January 7, 2025, at the hour of 4:00 p.m., to show cause why the Petitioner’s Petition as prayed for should not be granted.
You are further commanded to instruct the respondents herein to file their returns to this Writ together with a comprehensive legal memorandum in both hard and soft copies, in the office of the clerk of this Honorable Court, on/or before the said 7th day of January, A. D. 2025; and To read to the respondents the original, and leave a copy of the Writ of certiorari with the said respondents: and
as to when and how you shall have served this writ, you will make known by filing your official returns hereto on the back of the original copy of this writ, in the office of the clerk of this honorable court, on or before the said 7th day of January, A. D. 2025. And for so doing, this shall constitute your legal and sufficient authority.
State prosecutors/ government lawyers on Monday, December 23, 2024, filed another writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court against Criminal Court “C” Judge A. Blamo Dixon and former Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission boss A. Ndubusi Nwabudike to be out of Samuel D. Tweah and others defendants.
The Writ of Certiorari was filed at the Supreme Court against Judge Blamo A. Dixon after he denied state lawyers’ motion to rescue himself while Cllr. Nwabudike should be out of the case because he’s not a licensed lawyer by the LNBA despite Supreme Court ruled that he should be reinstated.
Petitioner’s petition to the Supreme Court says that first Respondent Judge Dixon denied Petitioner’s Motion for Recusal, even though the second respondent did not file resistance in keeping with the standards set by law, and constructively agreed with Petitioner that the first Respondent should recuse himself.
The petitioner added that the first respondent denied the petitioner’s motion to strike the second respondent’s resistance to the petitioner’s motion to sustain the purported resistance of the second Respondent even though both recuse, and the second Respondent’s purported resistance and the accompanying affidavit were signed by a person who has not obtained a license to practice law in the Republic of Liberia.
The petitioner prayed requested the court to take judicial notice of the attached signed and sealed communication from the Liberian National Bar Association declaring that “Nwabudike is not a licensed member of the LNBA that demonstrates that he is not a licensed lawyer.
The petitioner averred that the first respondent, as justification for his denial of petitioner’s Motion to Strike in which the petitioner informed the first respondent that Nwabudike was not licensed to practice and the he had no license number issued by the LNBA, said that the Honorable Supreme Court certified Nwabudike to practice law in the Republic of Liberia and that the Supreme Court is higher than the LNBA, referencing a judgment of the Supreme Court on Mr. Nwanbudike’s eligibility to practice law.
Further to Count 3, the petitioner said in order to impose himself, first respondent consciously ignored the part of the judgment that instructed Nwabudike to pursue obtaining his license from the Bar; something Mr. Nwabudike failed to do up to and including the drafting and filing of Petitioner’s Petition.
The petitioner argued that by sustaining the “Response” filed by second Respondents through a person who is not licensed to practice law within the bailiwick of the Republic of Liberia, when first Respondent had knowledge that Nwabudike had not met the requirement to practice law, as first respondent conjecturingly asked for the license number of Mr. Nwabudike and was merely supplied a tax identification number, both first Respondent and the lawyers of the second Respondent aided and facilitated the “unauthorized practice of law”; a violation of our ethical code for which Rule 37 of the Code For The Moral And Ethical Conduct Of Lawyers prescribes suspension form practice by the Supreme Court as a remedy.
The petitioner further said that the first respondent’s statement “that the court wondered whether or not the detention of only Co-Defendant Samuel D. Tweh at the Monrovia Central Prison Compound will help to establish the case of the prosecution against the defendants” is prejudicial to the cause of the Republic of Liberia, sells the false narrative that the Republic is only interested in the detention of the Defendants, and reinforces the argument of Petitioner that first respondent has manifested that he is incapable of being impartial in the case out of which petitioner’s petition grows, since in fact and indeed, the Petitioner has never requested the detention of the defendants and that the case is public and has members of the public usually in attendance.
Petitioner said it is fully cognizant and acknowledges that detention of defendants is the exclusive function of the court after a finding that some act or omission, on the part of a defendant, which the law forbids has occurred.
Petitioner incorporates the above counts of petitioner’s petition and reiterated that where the conduct of the presiding judge is intricate of itself that he should step aside without any request from the State.
This is what the Judicial Cannon (Cannon Ten), captioned “Essential Conduct of a Judge” says, “A judge should be temperate, attentive, impartial and since he is to administer the law, interpret it and apply it to the facts, he should be studious of the principles of the law and diligent in endeavoring to ascertain the facts.”
The petitioner said in further support of Count Six of Petitioner’s Petition, that first Respondent misled the public when he remarked, in his ruling sustaining the “Response” of the second Respondent that “the Justice Presiding-In-Chambers sanctioned the endorsement of the Bonds of all of the Defendants”.
The reality is that the Chamber Justice acknowledged that the bonds of the Defendants had defects, especially in the wake of the surety’s acknowledgment that the properties proffered as bonds had tax liens on them, but as was legally within his discretion, decided not to issue the earlier writ of certiorari prayed for.
As a consequence of the various prejudicial actions of the first Respondent, he has positioned himself as incapable of being impartial.
Petitioner requests the court to take judicial notice of the records and minutes of the court that the 1st Respondent has never demonstrated impartiality during these proceedings thereby requesting him to recuse himself. Further, the records also show that the Petitioner/Movant’s Motion for the first respondents to recuse himself, by operation of law was never resisted; since the purported resistance was defective.
Therefore, the judge by himself cannot insist that he must hear the matter over the objection by both the Prosecution and Defendant, and to do so input motive.
The petitioner prayed the court for the issuance of the Writ of Certiorari against the respondents and grant unto them all and singular the relief your honor may deem just, legal, and equitable in the premise.
