The Criminal Court ‘C’ at the Temple of Justice, hearing the case involving the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL) former Governor Milton Weeks, has granted prosecution’s motion for continuance with modification that it reverts to the court in a week as failure to do so, the case will be dismissed.The court maintained that the indictment against Co-defendant Weeks and others is dated June 14, 2019 and that, that indictment is based on oral and documentary evidences introduced before a grand inquest; meaning that before an indictment is released, the State has gathered enough evidence against a defendant.
Criminal Court ‘C’ presiding Judge Yamie Gbeisay who equated the behavior of the State’s Lawyers to mockery stated that this attitude is also towards the court and the justice system and reminded the lawyers that the court’s record showed that the resident judge of that court had earlier recused himself from the same case while another judge was objected to by the government lawyers from presiding over the case.
”This case, being a sensitive so-called high profile case, these consistent and continuous requests for postponements speak volume and give different impression of the court and the judge presiding therein to the public and tend to erode public confidence in the Judiciary,” the judge complained.
Judge Gbeisay reminded the parties that while the State has the right to Nolle Prosequoi cases under Section 18.1 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the court also reserves the right to dismiss the case under Section 18.2 of the same Criminal Procedure Law for unnecessary delays as in the instant case.
He said when this case was called in the last term of court, the state prayed the court for three weeks continuance, the request was granted and the three weeks requested for was extended beyond six weeks.
According to him, at the call of the case on May 13, the State informed the court that it has filed a motion for Nolle Prosequi against some of the defendants excluding Co-defendant Weeks thereby giving the impression that it has cogent and material evidence against the co-defendant.