78 Mins Read
Today Tuesday June 11th is the Feast of Saint Barnabas. St. Barnabas could be called the patron of all who give financial or material support to the Church. The first time the Bible speaks of him, it says he risked his life by selling his land and giving the proceeds from the sale to the Apostles to use it for the support of the Church (Acts 4:36-37) – an institution that was not recognized by the Government. He is also the man who risked his good relationship with the Apostles by defending the genuineness of the ministry of a former persecutor of the Church, Paul of Tarsus (Acts 9:26-28). Later on St. Barnabas defended the rights of the young and inexperienced St. Mark to be a part of the missionary-team of the Church, when the very Paul of Tarsus who he risked his life for said that the young and inexperienced John Mark should not be on the missionary-team, (Acts 15:37-39) because the young and inexperienced youth abandoned the missionary-team at one time (Acts 14:13).
This is therefore a suitable day for me to make known why I have lost faith in the Judiciary Branch of my Country Liberia. I am taking this risk on the Feast Day of the man who risked his life for the good of the Church. I do this on the Feast of Saint Barnabas for the good of Liberia.
No Hope
Before 2:00 p.m. on January 12, 2024 I had very exalted views of the Supreme Court Bench of Liberia. This good perception was not tied to any individual. I just thought highly of the Supreme Court of Liberia. I believed whatever the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia said. I never, one day in my entire life before this time, questioned whatever came from the Supreme Court of Liberia. Once I listened to the Chief Justice of Liberia saying he could not administer the oath of office to the president-elect because it was not yet midday. He kept the presidents and other foreign dignitaries who had come waiting for it to be 12:00 p.m. before he administered the oath of office to the president-elect. That is the image of the Supreme Court of Liberia that I had in my head.
However, experiential knowledge has interfered with unfounded perceptions of the Supreme Court of Liberia as a result of this Supreme Court Bench. So like St. Martin Luther, the Christian Reformer, who went to Rome in 1510 with great hope and came back from Rome downhearted, my personal encounter or experience with the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia on January 12, 2024 has made me worse than St. Martin Luther. St. Martin Luther, though he felt scandalized, only wanted a reform of the church. I am not only scandalized, I have no confidence in this Supreme Court Bench of Liberia, and the entire Judiciary Branch of Our Government. When the head is not well, I don’t expect the rest of the body to be well.
Why?
When the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia said that I had no evidence and that if a recount were done I would not win, you, my reader, don’t have to believe them. Also, tell everybody not to believe what the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia said about me. I had irrefutable evidence of electoral fraud and irregularities. I did not go to the Supreme Court to know whether when a recount was done I would win. I knew that I won, but the National Elections Commission of Liberia cheated me and thought that I would not know. I had the evidence for electoral fraud and irregularities, but the Hearing Officer, the Board of Commissioners of the National Elections Commission, and the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia refused to do what the law said they should do. So the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of Liberia wrote an article on “Fraud and Evidence,” and called it a ruling in order to deceive the public, especially those outside Liberia by saying in their article that I had no evidence and that I would not win a recount. I call it an article rather than a ruling because a ruling is a product of a hearing; but what the Chief Justice and Associate Justices read and signed to rob me of my victory, was totally different from the hearing they presided over in the courtroom of the Supreme Court of Liberia at the Temple of Justice on January 4, 2024. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia knew that if a recount were done I would win. I won the election that is why they, like the National Elections Commission of Liberia, refused to allow a recount.
Since the Chief Justice and Associate Justices made themselves members of the conspirators against my victory, they should have just proven me wrong by allowing the recount of the ballot papers. They knew that my votes were not recorded well. There was no polling place were I got less than 60 votes in one of the two sections of Electoral District Number Two, Montserrado County, Liberia during the October 10, 2023 Election conducted by the National Elections Commission of Liberia. God being so good, two dull recorders employed by the National Elections Commission of Liberia forgot the instructions given them to reduce my votes on paper. These two dull recorders wrote my real votes and later on cancelled them. At other polling places the recorders carried on the instructions. One of the staffs of National Elections Commission of Liberia at Precinct 30228 openly teased my supporters, telling them “We” (the election staff) “did it to Bishop Donyen.” He said, “We will see how he will win.” In the following Precincts the recorders of votes reduced my votes by writing lower numbers on the tally sheets : 30223, 30224, 30226, 30227, 30228, 30229, 30230 and 30231; at the same time, the recorders inflicted the votes of the man who the National Elections Commission of Liberia imposed on the district. This was the reason for the strong resistance to recount the ballot papers. For the man that the National Elections Commission called winner, very few votes were in the ballot boxes for him, but higher numbers were on the tally sheets for him. A recount would have revealed all sorts of mischiefs by the National Elections Commission of Liberia in Electoral District Number Two Montserrado County. A lot would have crawled out of the ballot boxes if a recount were done.
I had the evidences for electoral fraud and irregularities. I displayed the pieces of evidence. My complaint had nothing in common with fraudulent land acquisition, or fraudulent land lease, or fraudulent land transfer and deeds probation, or wrongful dismissal which the Supreme Court of Liberia ran to for refuge so as to strengthen the cheating of the National Elections Commission and to lie on me. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia lied when they said that I had no evidence, and that if a recount were done I would not win. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia lied on me.
At NEC
The Election Commission’s employee called the Hearing Officer said that my pieces of pieces of evidence were not original copies of the tally sheets, so he rejected them. Through my lawyer, I asked this Elections Commission’s employee called Hearing Officer, to ask his employer, the National Elections Commission of Liberia, to produce the original copies of the tally sheets so that a comparison could be made between the copies that I had and the original copies that were with the National Elections Commission of Liberia. This National Elections Commission’s staff called Hearing Officer rejected my request to ask his employer, the National Elections Commission of Liberia, to produce the original copies of the tally sheets. He said that if I were sure that I was cheated in the election, I should bring the original copies of the tally sheets. Objectively, this sounds reasonable, but subjectively, this is a good way to deceive people who don’t know how things are done in Liberia during the election.
To those who are outside Liberia, who have been deceived by the article signed by the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia, which they call ruling, I wish to tell you that no candidate in an election conducted by the National Elections Commission of Liberia, in the Republic of Liberia, possesses the original copies of the tally sheets at the end of every election in Liberia. At the end of an election conducted by the National Elections Commission of Liberia, after the counting of ballots papers, the National Elections Commission of Liberia gives a copy of the tally sheets to first and second places winners of polling places. The Commission places copies of the tally sheets on bulletin boards of voting precincts for the rest of the candidates and for the public. The original copies of the tally sheets are kept by the National Elections Commission of Liberia. The National Elections Commission of Liberia cannot deny this.
So when the National Elections Commission’s employee called Hearing Officer said that the very copies that his employer, the National Elections Commission of Liberia, gave to me, and those copies that the Commission placed on bulletin boards, were mere copies which could not be accepted, I was baffled. I couldn’t believe that I was before a man who was employed and authorized by the National Elections Commission of Liberia to investigate an election complaint. If he did not know that candidates are never custodians of the original copies of tally sheets, and that only the National Elections Commission of Liberia is always custodian of the original copies of the tally sheets at the end of an election conducted by the National Elections Commission of Liberia, in Liberia, then why did the Commission employ him and give him assignment to investigate election disputes? Was this not intentional? The Hearing Officer also said that he could not grant my request for a recount of the ballot papers because my poll watchers signed the tally sheets. This was strange!
The assignment of this man who did not know that original copies of tally sheets of an election conducted by the National Elections Commission of Liberia, in Liberia, are always is the custody of the National Elections Commission of Liberia was intentional. When I appealed to the Board of Commissioners of the National Elections Commission of Liberia, the employers of the Hearing Officer, who said that the copies of the tally sheets which his employer gave out could not be accepted, and who denied my formal request for the original copies of the tally sheets, through the legal way, subpoena duces tecum, the Board of Commissioners of the National Elections Commission of Liberia, said that their employee, the Hearing Officer, was right. For the Board of Commissioners of the National Elections Commission of Liberia to say that their employee called Hearing Officer was right, left no other alternative to be considered, but to believe that the appointment and assignment of this employee of the National Elections Commission called Hearing Officer to investigate my request for recount of ballot papers, was intentional. All lawyers who I talked with have told me that “subpoena duces tecum” is never denied, and copies can be accepted if those involved know where the originals are, that is to say, when there is common knowledge about the location of the original copies. What was amazing was that the Hearing Officer was an attorney at law in Liberia. Yet, he did not know that candidates don’t keep original copies of tally sheets after an election and that subpoena duces tecum is never denied.
Even though I didn’t know that when I asked for a recount, I would have been investigated, I think it is obvious why the National Elections Commission of Liberia employed this kind of lawyer, and gave him the title Hearing Officer, when he is in the deficit column of simple legal issues.
Supreme Court
Through my lawyer, I appealed to the Supreme Court of Liberia. The hearing of my complaint in the courtroom of the Supreme Court on January 4, 2024 by the Chief Justice and Associate Justices humiliated the National Elections Commission of Liberia. The Commission was ordered by the Chief Justice, “go back and do the right thing.” But it was just a matter of a couple of days and things would change.
Little did I know that the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia can say one thing and do another. I didn’t know that the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia are not people of their words. What this Supreme Court Bench read on January 12, 2024 in the Courtroom of the Supreme Court of Liberia at the Temple of Justice, was not a ruling. What they read was totally different from the hearing that they conducted. This Supreme Court Bench of Liberia has no authority to contradict the Supreme Court of Liberia. This Supreme Court Bench of Liberia cannot contradict itself either. So that which the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia read on January 12, 2024 cannot be a ruling of the case that they heard. It is too different.
When this Supreme Court Bench said on January 12, 2024 that I should have produced pictures and video recordings of the fraud and irregularities, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I asked myself in the Courtroom of the Supreme Court of Liberia, “Am I looking at and listening to the same Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia who were disgracing the National Elections Commission of Liberia in this same Courtroom of the Supreme Court of Liberia on January 4, 2024?” In 2005, the Supreme Court of Liberia gave guidelines to the National Elections Commission of Liberia to follow should there be an election dispute. This is what the Supreme Court said :
1. One would think that the
Commission would see as its
primary course in conducting an
investigation a desire for the truth.
2. Indeed, one would believe that the
commission, faced with any
accusations of misconduct of any
of its electoral officers would not so
much require the complainant to
produce evidence of the misconduct
as would take it upon itself to
investigate the incident and the
officials accused of the misconduct to
ascertain whether infact such conduct
was exhibited by the accused officials.
3. That, we believe, is what the framers
intended.
4. To require otherwise would mean that
in every election, one would have to
bring along a video camara, tape
recorder or other electronic devices as
would openly catch the officials
engaging in the misconduct.
5. The Commission must see itself as
investigating the claims, even if it
means introducing or calling upon
persons who may have information
that would show that the conduct
complained of was in fact
exhibited by the election personnel
accused of such conduct
6. The process must be seen to be
independent, transparent, objective,
and fact finding that would leave no
doubt as to what really transpired at
the scene of the election.
7. The focus should not be whether a
complaining party is estoppel from
raising the issue of election
irregularities but rather whether the
election irregularities did occur
and what impact those occurrences
have on the votes cast.
8. Consequently, the Commission cannot,
should not and must not indulge in the
luxury of seeking to discredit a
complainant by hiding behind legal
technicalities rather than seeking to
find and uncover the truth.
The numbering and breaking up of this 2005 Supreme Court’s Ruling is mine. The instruction is a block. I broke this block up into 8 parts because I want my reader to feel the power and goodwill of this Supreme Court Instruction. This Supreme Court Ruling initiated the customary way the Elections Commission was expected to conduct the investigation of election disputes in Liberia. Other candidates of the October 10, 2023 Election benefited from this customary way of investigating election disputes.
When it came to me being a beneficiary of this customary way of investigating election disputes, this Supreme Court Bench changed everything. This Supreme Court Bench granted all other requests for recount or rerun that came from the October 2023 Election because of the 2005 Supreme Court Ruling. Only my request for recount, which was so simple, non-complex, and easy to grant, was denied by this Chief Justice and these Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia.
After the hearing in the Courtroom of the Supreme Court at the Temple of Justice on January 4, 2024, it was clear that the Chief Justice and Associate Justices would order the Elections Commission to do a recount or do the facts findings investigation that would lead to a recount of the ballot papers. Why the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia changed is difficult to comprehend. Did a “yellow envelope” fall from the sky and drop in the Supreme Court? Did a religious group tell the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia that they will not see God if they don’t inflict injustice on me? Why the radical change by the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia?
What is Facts findings?
Here is a story that may get the message of facts findings across. In 1999, 25 years ago, I appealed to ADRA Liberia to include the students of my school – called Holy Innocents School, with about 400 students – in their school feeding program. A team was sent by ADRA to my school to do some verifications. The team approved my school.
One afternoon, a man came to my house and said that people on a truck with foodstuffs, at the New Georgia Estate Junction, said that they were looking for Holy Innocents School. The same man came back again and said that the driver of the truck went to another school campus and offloaded the foodstuffs, and a big white (truck-like) pickup came and the food was loaded onto the white pickup and taken away. When the man left, I began to soliloquize: “What is going on? I don’t know this man but he has come to my house two times with two different informations about my school. If I went to the junction to ask whether people in a truck with food were looking for my school, I may turn myself into a laughing stock. Since the man says that the food came from ADRA, I will go to check with ADRA.”
The next day, after eating my cold-rice in the morning, I took a bus to Benson Street. Then I took a taxi from Benson Street to Old Road where, ADRA’s School Feeding Program Headquarters was located. I explained to the security why I was there, and they directed me to an office. I went to the office and met a lady. I explained to her that I heard that a truck with food from ADRA came near my school and those in it said that the food was for my school, but they didn’t reach the food to my school. Oh my God! As soon as I said this, the lady started shouting: “How do you know that the food was for your school? If the food was for your school, they would have delivered it to your school. You people are quick to say this or that. You people are quick to spoil people’s names. You people need to stop spoiling ADRA’s name because of this food.”
As she was talking at the top of her voice, and maybe because she was shouting, the Country Director of the School Feeding Program at ADRA in Liberia came. He asked her, “What was happening?” She told him why I was there. The Country Director said to the lady, “Bring the folders.” She brought the folders and placed them on the desk that was in that office. The Country Director asked me for the name of my school. I called it.
The Director himself did the searching. During the search, he found a folder with the label, “Holy Innocents School.” When the Country Director opened the folder, there was a letter from me appealing for food for my students. He asked me, “Is this your letter? Is this your signature?” I said, “Yes!” He turned to the next page and found the assessment team’s report approving the school. My signature and another signature were on this page. He may have been familiar with the other signature so the Country Director turned to the next page and the third page contained the information of the delivery of food. The food was delivered; but the sheet was signed by someone else. It was not my signature. So the Country Director said, “This signature is not the man’s signature. We will investigate.” Then he told me to go and they would get back to me. I left the building.
What the Country Director did, is what is referred to as facts finding. I had no evidence, no picture, no video recordings that food for the students of my school was diverted. But the Country Director checked the folder and he found out that food that was supposed to go to the students of my school, Holy Innocents School, went to a wrong place. This is the meaning of facts finding. “Check, maybe something is wrong or nothing is wrong.” If nothing is wrong, it is over. If something is wrong, correct it.
But something else will happened. It seems someone at ADRA knew that a game was played with the food for the students of my school. So as I stood on the road waiting for a taxi cab to take me to Johnson Street in Central Monrovia, a young man came from the ADRA fence and greeted me. I responded and he apologized to me for what happened, and advised me to go to the Ministry of Education so that getting the students’ food would be faster.
From Old Road I went to the Ministry of Education and I was sent to an office responsible for school feeding. I explained my case. After explaining, the man who was in charge of school feeding at the Ministry Of Education said to me, “Since you didn’t come to appeal, but you came to complain, your school will never get food.” This was totally unexpected! I left the ministry and went home.
A couple of days later I got the “free news” that the man who told me that my school will never get food because I complained, did not only know about the food that didn’t go to my school, he knew where the food went. So on a Monday morning I went to the Deputy Minister For Instruction at the Ministry of Education, who and I were going to college in Gbarnga, and explained my problem; but nothing changed. Since 1999, the food has not come. All, because the man in charge of school feeding coined the concept, “You complained. You did not appeal.” My school has not got the food because I was accused of complaining, rather than appealing. In the same way NEC coined the concept “You have no evidence.” To the joy of NEC, whichever place I went, whether below NEC, or at NEC or above NEC, that is the Supreme Court, I heard the same music more melodiously, “You have no evidence.” So the election that I won, was taken from me by NEC and given to another candidate, just as the food for the students of my school was picked up by a white truck-like pickup and carried somewhere else. But this is not the only way facts finding is done.
Moses Tweh
I remember the story of Moses Tweh who disappeared in Harper on June 26, 1977. His dead and mutilated body was found on July 4, 1977. Moses was the husband of my cousin Gbeh, a lady from the Gbarklehpo Quarter of Betu. She and her husband were living in Harper. She is an old ma today.
How Moses got lost was a mystery. No evidence was available. It is said that some people saw his canoe anchored. He got out of the canoe and sold his fish. He went to wash his hands and he disappeared. Who should be held responsible? No one! But through facts findings, people were later on arrested. Some confessed. Some of those who were arrested were tried in court, found guilty and executed by hanging.
How does Moses Tweh’s disappearance relate to facts findings? While the disappearance of Moses Tweh was the talk of the town, a lady was heard saying something like this, “If you will ever find him, only his dead body you will see.” The question was, “Why did she say so?” The answer to this question, led people in different directions until people began to be identified and arrested. Some of those who were identified confessed and named the rest of the doers of the act.
Because electoral fraud and irregularities are very special, and hard to be booked, in 2005 the Supreme Court of Liberia authorized the National Elections Commission of Liberia to do “facts findings” when a candidate complains, when a candidate is suspicious. “Do some checking.” It is sad to say, when I complained, the National Elections Commission of Liberia did no checking, or investigation of my complaint. The commission made fool of me for more than two months, with the hope that I would give up, as some people said. But I didn’t give up. I knew that a Supreme Court could correct the National Elections Commission of Liberia. So I appealed to the Supreme Court because I believed that the Supreme Court was a place where the law was supreme.
During the hearing in the courtroom of the Supreme Court at the Temple of Justice on January 4, 2024 the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court said that the denial of my request for recount on grounds that my poll watchers signed the tally sheets was unlawful. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia cannot deny that they said so. The Chief Justice said that one who signed a document can challenge it later if something strange is detected. So my request for recount was addressed by the Supreme Court on January 4, 2024.
In the Courtroom of the Supreme Court of Liberia at the Temple of Justice, the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia told the National Elections Commission of Liberia that the National Elections Commission was not a court, it was an administrative forum, where the evidentiary law does not apply. The Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia told the Elections Commission that election was about knowing the will of the people. So if a candidate had some doubt, the Election Commission was obliged to investigate rather than demand the complainant-candidate to produce evidence. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia went further by rhetorically asking the National Elections Commission of Liberia, since the Commission is the custodian of the original copies of the tally sheets, would it not have been considered better, if the bringing of the original copies of the tally sheets by the Commission be characterized by spontaneity, rather than the Commission waiting to be asked to bring the original copies of the tally sheets? The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia cannot denied that this rhetorical question came from the Supreme Court Bench during the hearing of my complaint in the Courtroom of the Supreme Court of Liberia at the Temple of Justice on January 4, 2024.
Out of frustration, because the National Elections Commission of Liberia did not do well, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Liberia personally told the National Elections Commission that a request for recount should not have come to the Supreme Court. She said that it was so simple a request, which could have been done with within four hours in the presence of representatives of candidates, and cameras, to prove that the Commission was transparent. The Chief Justice concluded by telling the National Elections Commission of Liberia to go and do the right thing. The lawyer of the Elections Commission agreed that the Commission was going back to do the right thing. With this kind of understanding, the Chief Justice announced that we should go home and that the Supreme Court would call us back. Was the case not over when the Chief Justice said, “Go back and do what is right,” and the lawyer representing the National Elections Commission of Liberia said, “We will go back and do what is right?” The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia cannot denied this.
Psychological Isolation
Eight days later, the Supreme Court called us back. The first thing that the Supreme Court did was to hide the date of the ruling from me; that is, if my lawyer told me the truth that he had just received the call from the Supreme Court. At about 5 minutes after 10:00 a.m. on January 12, 2024 my lawyer telephoned me and said that the Supreme Court said that we should be at the Supreme Court at 12:00 p.m. for the ruling. It was unimaginable that the Supreme Court could do such a thing! But I hurriedly got myself ready and went.
Three of my political supporters who were around when I received the call from my lawyer accompanied me to the Supreme Court. One of my supporters came from Pepper Wulu Town in Johnsonville on a motorbike to the Temple of Justice. When we got to the Supreme Court, the security stopped all my supporters from entering the Courtroom of the Supreme Court of Liberia at the Temple of Justice. Only I alone was allowed by the Supreme Court security to enter the Courtroom of the Supreme Court. I entered and met my lawyer in the Courtroom.
More than 100 persons were in the courtroom, but I didn’t know anybody, except my lawyer. But my lawyer was not my political supporter or my relative.
A similar thing was done to me at the Temple of Justice on January 4, 2024. Some days before the hearing in the Courtroom of the Supreme Court at the Temple of Justice, my lawyer informed me that my complaint would be heard by the Supreme Court on January 4, 2024. I posted this message on my Facebook page. More than 100 of my supporters from across Electoral District Number Two Montserrado County got to the Temple of Justice with banners to give me a surprised welcome to the courtyard.
Unexpectedly, a group of armed policemen, from the tribe of the man whom the National Elections Commission announced as winner, did not allow any of my supporters to be on the grounds of the Temple of Justice. These armed policemen carried all my supporters to the front of the National Police Headquarters and kept them there under guard, and began to provoke my supporters. I did not know that my supporters who had come earlier to the Temple of Justice were taken away by well-armed police officers who belonged to the tribe of the man whom the National Elections Commission of Liberia announced as the winner.
On January 4, 2024, I got to the courtyard and climbed to the floor of the Temple of Justice where the Courtroom of the Supreme Court was, with three gentlemen and two ladies. When we got to the entrance of the Courtroom of the Supreme Court, my 5 supporters, who were going to be with me in the Courtroom, were stopped by the Supreme Court security. Only I alone was allowed to enter the Courtroom of the Supreme Court of Liberia at the Temple of Justice on January 4, 2024. I entered and saw my lawyer. But my lawyer was not my political supporter or my relative.
I hope the Supreme Court will stop treating a person who is going to the Courtroom of the Supreme Court as a complainant or a defendant the way they treated me. At least a few persons who have some relationship to the person who has been invited by the Supreme Court for an investigation should be allowed to be with the person in the Courtroom, at least for psychological security.
Notwithstanding, besides the psychological fear caused by the loneliness of being in court for a political case without anyone of my political supporters, no one did me any physical harm in the courtroom of the Supreme Court of Liberia on January 4th and on January 12th. However, for the Supreme Court of Liberia to invite me for a political case and separate me from all my political supporters, created psychological problems for me. I could not look at anyone and smile or nod my head when something favorable was said. The question I asked myself in the courtroom was, “Am I safe in Liberia?” St. Barnabas! Pray for me.
Ruling
I was in the Courtroom on January 12, 2024 when the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia entered and read their article on “Fraud And Evidence,” which they called “ruling.” I could not believe when the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia said that I had no evidence, that if I had brought some pictures and videos of the election malpractices, then it would have helped my complaint, and that a recount could not take place, because if a recount were done, I would not win. So the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia dismissed my appeal to the Supreme Court of Liberia for redress.
“Morn Donyen!” I said to myself. It was unbelievable! I could not believe that the men and women on the Supreme Court Bench, who I respected so highly, were doing what should not be done. An unusual amazement seized me. I said to myself, ‘How can a judge hear a case and rule differently?” Eight days earlier, on January 4, 2024, the Justices who said that the evidentiary law does not apply in election cases were telling me, on January 12, 2024 that I should have produced evidences like pictures and videos of the electoral malpractices. I could not believe it. I still cannot believe it. I sat as they read their article and asked myself, ” Are the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia not men and women of their words?” I wish they were men and women of their words.
Eight days earlier, the Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia said that a recount was a simple thing which could have been done in about four hours; and that this kind of case should not have come to the Supreme Court. In frustration, the Chief Justice raised her voice and spoke to the National Elections Commission of Liberia: “Just a recount! Just a recount! This kind of case should not have come here!” The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia cannot deny this.
Maybe on January 4, 2024, the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia thought that I didn’t win so they were following the law. But maybe they discovered that if a recount were done they would be forced to declare me winner, so the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia transformed themselves into magicians and ruled that if a recount were done I will not win. This is not law. It is magic.
Over
The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia have the final word. So a recount could not be done. For this reason my victory which was jerked from me, first by the National Elections Commission of Liberia was taken by the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia and given to a candidate who did not come third place in the Election for Representative conducted by the National Elections Commission of Liberia in Electoral District Number Two, Montserrado County, on October 10, 2024.
The Founders and Foundresses of Our Country Liberia say that we should accept the ruling of the Supreme Court as the last ruling. “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you”
(Exodus 20:12) is a divine mandate. I cannot do my will here. Notwithstanding, decisions of the Supreme Court are laws. Because decisions or rulings of the Supreme Court are laws, they have to be reasonable. It is for this reason a Father of Christianity, St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) said, “an unjust law is no law at all.” Meaning that no one is obliged to obey unjust laws. It is unjust because it is unreasonable.
The ruling of the Supreme Court of Liberia in my complaint does not come close to being just. It is too far from a just act. So while I accept the ruling because of the objective reality of the Supreme Court, an institution given to us by the Founding Fathers and Mothers of Our Beloved Country Liberia, to be the “Last Arbiter” in Our Country, I am sorry to say, I don’t agree with this ruling of this Supreme Court Bench. This ruling does not have the dignity of what should come from the Supreme Court of Liberia, Africa’s Oldest Negro Republic. This ruling has made this Supreme Court Bench unworthy of the dignity of Final Arbiter in Liberia.
The objective reality of the Supreme Court is that our Founding Fathers and Mothers presumed that its occupants would be men and women who will administer justice. So they instructed us to regard their verdicts as the final verdicts. Our Founding Fathers and Mothers instructed us the People of Liberia to go to this Court for final arbitration when we are not satisfied with the rulings of the subordinate places of arbitration. The presumption is that justice will be done to all in this Court.
But our Founding Fathers and Mothers left the subjective reality of this court with us. Those who are occupants of the Supreme Court Bench constitute the subjective reality of this Court. We have to choose them and appoint them. They must be Liberian citizens who are able to administer justice. They cannot be Liberian citizens who are afraid to administer justice. I am wondering how this Chief Justice and these Associate Justices got to the Supreme Court of Liberia? Who put them there.? It is time we find a Supreme Court Bench that can serve as justices that can administer justice to all, not justice to some.
My first run to the Supreme Court of Liberia has brought great disappointment to my heart. This Supreme Court Bench is not worthy to be the final arbiter of justice in Liberia. This Chief Justice and these Associate Justices of Our Supreme Court are not the kind of Liberian citizens who should be on our Supreme Court Bench. They are afraid. They are living in fear. They are afraid to be just.
A Kru parable says, “When an oracle advises you, use your own heart to advise yourself.” Kru is one of the tribes of Liberia. Even though our Founding Fathers and Mothers say that we should accept the decisions of Our Country’s Supreme Court, this Chief Justice and these Associate Justices are making very bad decisions. They don’t believe that that they are Justices of Liberia’s Supreme Court. If they believed, they would not be playing with people’s destinies, and making decisions that can cause people to jump at one another.
Seed Of Bloodshed
The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia may have thought that they were blocking me from being declared winner. Unfortunately, the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia have sown a very bad seed that will grow and produce the fruits of bloodshed and killings in Liberia. Their ruling that candidates should have pictures and video recordings of election frauds and irregularities before coming to complain, is a very bad seed that they have sown.
They have now introduced double standards in the investigation of election disputes. If they want to follow the law, they will order the Elections Commission to function as an administrative forum, and do facts findings, and not act as a court, by asking for evidences. If the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia want to treat a candidate bad, with disrespect, and abuse the candidate’s rights by using legal technicalities to block the candidate from being declared winner even though he or she has the highest votes, like they have done to me, the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of this Supreme Bench will demand the complainant-candidate to come with pictures and video recordings of the fraud and irregularities that constitute the complaint.
It is strange the Supreme Court of Liberia contradicted the Supreme Court of Liberia. Compare the 2005 ruling of the Supreme Court of Liberia, which said that the National Elections Commission of Liberia is not a court, but an administrative forum, which should not demand evidence, but do facts findings, and the Supreme Court’s Ruling on January 12, 2024, which says candidates must have evidences like pictures and video recordings before they can complain. This Supreme Court Bench contradicts the Supreme Court of Liberia.
The 2005 ruling was the appropriate precedent of my complaint. But this Supreme Court Bench chose to contradict the Supreme Court of Liberia just to deny me my victory. So the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court ran to fraudulent land disputes cases, unlawful dismissal cases and used them as precedents to rule in a request for recount of ballot papers. St. Barnabas! Pray for Liberia.
There should be no surprise when other candidates, who got the highest votes but are denied victory by the National Elections Commission of Liberia or the Supreme Court of Liberia, refuse to bow and accept what the Supreme Court of Liberia has done to me. When that time comes, when people are bleeding with blood, then the People of Liberia will realize that they should not have, in the name of separation of powers, allowed the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia to plant the bad seed of double standards in Liberia.
DID THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ASSOCIATE
JUSTICES OF LIBERIA LIE ON ME?
Part Three
Double Standards
This Supreme Court Bench should not have introduced double standardization in Our Country. Liberia now needs a Supreme Court that should fight to destroy double standardization in every form. By the action of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of this Supreme Court Bench of Liberia, Liberia has come to another stage in the evolutionary process of democratizing Liberia, begun by “Liberian Progressives.” Liberia, which has graduated from the tyranny of the Executive, has fallen prey to the arbitrariness of the Judiciary Branch.
The Judiciary Branch is acting as a “free institution” – that is, free to do what it wants – not what should be done according to law. This makes Liberia a hopeless country. When there is no confidence in the court, the country is hopeless. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia should not have done this. What should they do to begin remedying this misfortune? I don’t know whether the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of Liberia have formed consciences. If they had, the best they would do for now is to resign. Since they may be men and women with “dried faces,” and no consciences, they should be told to resign as President Samuel Doe did to the Supreme Court Bench in 1987, or if they do not want to resign, they should be impeached.
Precedents
In order to deceive the public, and the whole world, the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia wrote an article on “Fraud And Evidence” and used rulings of previous cases as precedents, which have no connection to my request for recount of ballot papers.
What is precedent? When I googled the word “precedent,” this is what I saw online: “Precedent refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues.”
Below are five precedents that the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia used to support their deception-strategy to deny my request for recount of ballot papers, which, if it had taken place, would have not taken my victory from me, as winner of the October 10, 2023 Representative Election in Electoral District Number Two, Montserrado County, Liberia, conducted by the National Elections Commission of Liberia.
Precedent Case 1
FRANKYU ET AL Versus
ACTION CONTRE LA FAIM
39 LLR 289 296
This is a Bad Labor Practice case from Grand Bassa County. 34 private security personnels provided security at a company in Grand Bassa County. Each was paid monthly for the regular working hours. Maybe because the security personnels were working well, the company upgraded the contract by asking the security personnels to do the socalled overtime, that is, working additional hours each day. The private security personnels agreed and began working additional hours each day. This went on from May 1995 to May 1997, a total of 24 months.
The story says, paying the private security personnels for the overtime became a problem. One group of the private security personnels received US$10,000.00. Others could not get their pay for the extra working hours. At the same time, the company was slowly getting rid of the private security personnels one by one. So those security personnels who could not get their money for the extra hours complaint to the Labor Commissioner of Grand Bassa County.
The story says a Hearing Officer of the Labor Ministry convened a meeting of the company’s management and the poor private security personnels. At this meeting, both parties agreed that 3 representatives of the private security personnels and a representative of the company would meet at the Ministry of Labor to agree on the number of extra hours that the private security personnels worked for.
The Hearing Officer of the Labor Ministry set a meeting for February 2, 1998. The company did not attend. The Hearing Officer at the Labor Ministry rescheduled the meeting for February 12, 1998. The company did not come again. Thirdly, the Hearing Officer at the Labor Ministry scheduled the meeting of the company and the 3 representatives of the private security personnels for March 2, 1998. Again, the company did not come. But for this third time, the company’s lawyer sent in a letter of excuse saying that he had cases at the Magisterial Court and the Debt Court in Monrovia.
The lawyer of the private security personnels asked the Hearing Officer of the Labor Ministry to pass a default judgement since the company’s lawyer didn’t attach any evidence to prove his engagement in the Magisterial Court and the Debt Court in Monrovia. The Hearing Officer granted the request and ruled that the company should pay US$19,370.18 to the security personnels.
The company disagreed with the Hearing Officer’s Ruling and asked the National Labor Court to review the complaint of the private security personnels and the ruling of the Hearing Officer. The judge of the National Labor Court reversed the default ruling of the Hearing Officer. The private security personnels took an appeal to the Supreme Court.
I am from Betu. Ar Bartee OOO! I have summarily retold this story so that my readers will join me in asking, what has this kind of case and its ruling got to do with my request to recount ballot papers? Why did the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia use this case and its ruling as precedent in their socalled ruling of my complaint to the Supreme Court? What is the relationship or similarity between my request for recount of ballot papers and this bad labor practice case for which the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia used its ruling as precedent in denying me justice? Ar Bartee OOO
Precedent Case 2
FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
And WALTERS ET AL
34 LLR 777-783
This is a wrongful dismissal case. People were dismissed from their jobs. They went to court. Let me briefly retell this wrongful dismissal story.
When ten employees of FDA were dismissed by the Management of FDA in 1985, the ten considered their dismissal a wrongful dismissal and complained first to the Managing Director of the FDA and asked him to investigate a report that didn’t represent their standing in the FDA. When the Managing Director of the FDA could not respond to the ten dismissed staff, they appealed to the Board of Directors of the FDA. The Board of Directors also did not respond to the aggrieved dismissed former FDA staff’s complaint. So after waiting for seven months and the FDA could not respond to the aggrieved dismissed former FDA staff, the ten dismissed former staff of FDA complaint to the Ministry of Labor. The Ministry of Labor sent citations upon citations to the FDA Management, (a total of ten citations to the the FDA) inviting them to come for a hearing. The FDA ignored the Ministry of Labor eight times, and responded to only two citations.
Because the FDA refused to come to the Hearing Officer at the Labor Ministry, the Hearing Officer heard the explanation of one of the ten former FDA staff in the absence of the FDA or its lawyer, and on August 22, 1986, nine months after the former FDA staff complaint to the Labor Ministry, for wrongful dismissal, the Hearing Officer at the Labor Ministry awarded each of the wrongfully dismissed former FDA staff 24 months salary, which was US$11,280.00. The total amount for the ten former FDA staff came to US$112,800.00.
The FDA Management took an appeal to the Board of General Appeals at the Ministry of Labor. Again, the ten wrongfully dismissed ten former FDA staff won the case, but the Board of General Appeals at the Labor Ministry, reduced the compensation of each of the wrongfully dismissed former staff to US$6,545.00, which came to US$65,450.00 for all the ten former staff. The Management of FDA took an appealed to the National Labor Court. On June 12, 1987 the National Labor Court, ruled in favor of the ten wrongfully dismissed former FDA staff. The Management of FDA was not satisfied and appealed to the Supreme Court of Liberia.
Ar Bartee OOO! What has this case and its ruling have in common with my request for recount of ballot papers for which the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia used it to deny me my victory which was in the ballot box anxious to come out after the recount? Bartee OOO!
Precedent Case 3
HARMON AND THE REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA
24 LLR 176 Syl.2 1975
This case is about a man who came to live with a relative, but fraudulently obtained legal documents for his relatives’ 25.8 acres of land. He was caught. The deed was cancelled. Please let me briefly retell this story.
1. The story says, on July 3, 1888 President Hilary R. W. Johnson signed a deed for 25.8 acres of land in favor of Basie, Hawah Ghai, residents of Fanima Town. Their ancestors were inhabitants of this land before the 1880’s. No one had disturbed them.
2. A man came to live with his relatives in Fanima Town in the 1930’s. Later, his relatives gave him a place to reside. About one and half decades later, this relative, who came to live with his relatives at Fanima Town, went to the Land Commissioner and asked the Commissioners to grant him a deed for the land. The Commissioner, believing that the land was a free parcel of land, granted him a deed in 1951, signed by President William V.S. Tubman.
3. Two deeds for this parcel of land were at Fanima Town. One was signed by President Hilary R W Johnson in 1888, and the other deed was signed by President William V S Tubman in 1951. One piece of land, two different deeds.
4. When the true story came out, the 1951 deed for this 25.8 acres of land was cancelled by the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court of Montserrado County in 1973 because it was fraudulently obtained. The fraudulent owner deceived the Land Commissioner and obtained legal documents for this land.
Ar Bartee OOO! How this land case and its ruling can ever be a precedent of my request for recount of ballot papers will always be a mystery. What has this kind of case in common with my request to the National Elections Commission for a recount of ballot papers for which the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia used it and its ruling as precedent in deciding my request for recount of ballot papers? Bartee OOO!
Would the Executive Mansion had crumbled to the ground if the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia proved me wrong by ordering a recount of the ballot papers which had the true message of leadership of the District from the People of Electoral District Number Two Montserrado County? Would the Temple of Justice fall to the ground if the truth had been revealed?
Precedent Case 4
SCAF AND RICKETT
28 LLR 263 1994
This case is about a half town lot that enjoyed being rented. It can be digested like this: Sieanyene rented a half town lot to Davidetta, Davidetta the renter, rented this same half town lot to Jamesetta, and Sieanyene rented this same half town lot to Jamesetta too. This is the story.
01. Henry G. Rickett had a half town lot. In 1956, he leased it to Levant Merchantile Corporation.
02. On March 5, 1959 Rickett re-leased this same half town lot to Levant Merchantile Corporation through its manager Joseph G. Fazzah. This new lease cancelled the 1956 lease. The duration of this new lease was March 5, 1959 to March 5, 1969. The rental fee was US$75.00 a month, which was US$900.00 a year.
03. On October 31, 1959 Levant Merchantile Corporation subleased the half town lot, which he leased from Henry G. Rickett, to Raouf Scaf.
04. Everything was find until after 1973. Problem began to come when Henry G Rickett leased the same half town lot to Raouf Scaf on October 31, 1974. This lease agreement, which did not cancel the 1959 lease agreement, was to last from March 5, 1975 to March 4, 1995 – 20 years. Also, the 1959 lease agreement that Henry G Rickett and Levant Merchantile Corporation signed for this same half town lot on March 5, 1959 still needed 43 more months to end.
05. Though the 1959 lease was still binding, on August 1, 1974, a US$1,500.00 check was made as advance payment for one year rent covering March 5, 1975 to March 4, 1976.
06. Secondly a check for US$1,500.00 was made as one year rent for the period March 5, 1976 to March 5, 1977.
07. When the third check for US$1,500.00 was made as one year rent for the period March 5, 1977 to March 4, 1978 Mrs Rickett refused to receive it.
08. Mrs. Rickett refused to receive the third check because she said that the agreement was fraudulent. She said that her husband was very sick and weak-minded when he signed the lease agreement in 1974. However, she received one of the first two checks and used US$1,500.00 as she felt without complaining.
09. She said that her husband was not well, and non of his relatives was invited to witness the signing of the 1974 lease agreement. So it was fraudulent.
10. Mrs Rickett claimed that the lease agreement that her husband signed in 1974 was invalid because her husband was very sick at the time he signed it. The medical report of a medical practitioner called Titus supported Mrs. Rickett’s claim that her husband was very sick in 1974. The doctor said that Rickett’s feeblemindedness began at the beginning of the 1970’s and got worse each new year. This gives grounds to Mrs Rickett’s claim that the lease agreement of 1974 was invalid and fraudulent.
11. However, in 1976 Henry G. Rickett signed a power of attorney. Mrs Rickett did not complain that the power of attorney was invalid and fraudulent.
12. Finally in 1977 Mr. Henry Rickett, who it was said was feebleminded, signed his last will and testament. Mrs Rickett did not complain that the last will and testament signed by her husband were invalid and fraudulent because her husband was very sick and mentally unable to make such a decision. This is the case that reached the Supreme Court of Liberia.
Ar Bartee OOO! I cannot stop asking, what has this messy story in common with the simple request by Nimely J. Donyen to recount ballot papers for which it and its ruling are a precedent? I also discovered that the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court closed their eyes to the guidelines this ruling gave to them on page 270, LLR 28: “Courts are required, … not to aid parties to escape the performance of their obligations.” Did the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia not realize that when they refused to order the National Elections Commission of Liberia to abide by the 2005 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Liberia which gave guidelines to the Elections Commission on how to investigate election disputes, they were aiding the National Elections Commission in robbing me of my victory as winner of the 2023 Representative Election in Electoral District Number Two, Montserrado County, Liberia?
At the bottom of page 270 (28 LLR 1994), the Supreme Court said, “It was, therefore, a reversible error for the court to have denied appellant’s application for a subpoena duces tecum to make appellee produce the will before court.” Am I reading that it is an error for a judge or Hearing Officer to deny a subpoena duces tecum? This is what the National Elections Commission’s employee called Hearing Officer did to me, and the Board of Commissioners of the National Elections Commission of Liberia approved. I asked the National Elections Commission’s employee called Hearing Officer, through the legal way, subpoena duces tecum, to ask the National Elections Commission of Liberia to bring the original copies of the tally sheets, this employee of the National Elections Commission called Hearing Officer, denied my request. But in the ruling of the case that the Chief Justice and Associate Justices used as precedent, though there is no similarity between this case and my request for recount of ballot papers, the Supreme Court said that subpoena duces tecum should not have been denied.
Precedent Case 5
WILSON ET AL AND WILSON & IVY
37 LLR 420 1994
Children of a former chief justice and their stepmother fought over a rubber farm on a 750 acres of land in Maryland County in the 1970’s. This is how the story went.
01. A Dash Wilson, former representative of Maryland County, former senator of Maryland County, and former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Liberia, had a rubber farm in Maryland County. This rubber farm was on a 750 acres of land.
02. The Chief Justice was faced with a problem created by the Americo-Liberian strategy to protect Americo-Liberian men’s properties. This property protection strategy went this way.
03. A law was made which did not say that a woman should not inherit her husband’s property. The law said that a man was not allowed to directly bequeath his properties to his wife.
04. A Dash Wilson, being a lawyer, knew how to circumvent, or pass around, this wife-non-direct-inheritance-law. A man’s property could be given to his wife through a third party. That is what A Dash Wilson and his wife did.
05. On January 13, 1970 A Dash Wilson and his wife Frances C. Wilson transferred the 750 acres of land that had a rubber farm to Emma Salome Ivy. Also on January 13, 1970, Emma Salome Ivy transferred the 750 acres of land on which the rubber farm was on to Mrs. Frances Wilson, the wife of A Dash Wilson. That is to say, the land was transferred to Emma Salome Ivy and from Emma Salome Ivy to Mrs Frances Wilson the same day and date.
06. On January 14, 1970, the day immediately after the transfer to and transfer back was done, the deed transferring the 750 acres of land to Emma Salome Ivy were probated, and on this same day and date (January 14, 1970) the deeds transferring the 750 of land on which the rubber farm was, back to Mrs Frances Wilson, wife of Chief Justice A Dash Wilson, was probated. So in 48 hours, the 750 acres of land was transferred, and its new deed were probated.
07. The two transfers and the two probations of deeds on January 13, 1970 and January 14, 1970 respectively, were done without the knowledge of Chief Justice A Dash Wilson’s nine children. Two years later the chief justice died in 1972.
08. Because the deed transferring the 750 acres of land to Emma Salome Ivy and deed transferring the 750 acres from Emma Salome Ivy back to Mrs Frances Wilson were done the same day and also probated the next day, without the knowledge of the children, the children believed that everything was fraudulently done. So the children asked the Circuit Court of Maryland County to cancel and nullify all the transfers.
09. The late chief justice’s nine children’s investigation revealed that their dad transferred the land to their stepmother through Emma Salome Ivy before he died.
They felt that their father acted fraudulently because he didn’t tell them that he was transferring the 750 acres of land. Moreover, the two deeds, transferring the land to Emma Salome Ivy and from Emma Salome Ivy to Mrs Frances Wilson, came into effect the same day and date, and probated the same day and date, even though there was a law which said that deeds must not be probated until the third day after they have been signed passes. But the transfers and the probation were done in less than three days.
10. The Circuit Court of Maryland County said that no fraud was committed, that a father does not have to notify his children before transferring his properties. The children appealed to the Supreme Court.
Ar Bartee OOO! This is the case, and its ruling, that this Supreme Court Bench cites as a precedent in deciding my request for a recount. What is the relationship between my request for a recount of ballot papers and a 750 acres of land case? Any similarity? Bartee OOO!
Comment On Precedents
All the five precedents that the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia invoked to deny me justice have nothing to do with my request for recount of ballot papers. When people want to do you bad, and they have the power and authority to do you bad, they use any kind of means or tricks to justify their wickedness. When wicked people who had been pretending to be good all the time, come to deal with a godly figure, the wickedness that is buried in them comes to the surface for everyone to see. It was therefore good I went to the Supreme Court of Liberia to discover for myself that this court is not what I thought it to be.
Has the meaning of precedent changed? Do the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of Liberia have the authority to change the meaning of “precedent?”
I came out of the Courtroom of the Supreme Court of Liberia on January 12, 2024 having no trust again in the Supreme Court of Liberia. I trusted the Supreme Court so much. I thought the Justices of the Supreme Court were the most sincerest Liberian citizens. So I trusted them a lot. I thought the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia believed that they were “final arbiters of justice in Liberia.” I never thought that one could go to Our Supreme Court and be treated inhumanely and unjustly as this Supreme Court Bench has treated me.
By driving away everyone who accompanied me to the Supreme Court and making sure I was alone in the Courtroom the Supreme Court inflicted psychological insecurity on me. I was too lonely. This was meant to deny me having anybody from my camp to bear witness to the hearing or the ruling. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia should not have done this to me.
In denying me justice the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia have introduced double standards in investigating election disputes. It could lead to bloodshed and deaths in the future. I suggest that the National Legislature of Liberia enacts a law as quickly as tomorrow, to destroy the seed of bloodshed and deaths that this Supreme Court Bench has sown in Liberia through their introduction of double standards.
A ruling of a court is a product of the hearing. A judge who hears a case cannot rule differently. That is what the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia did to me. Such a blunder should not be associated with legal practitioners who have gone through the rank and file of our legal system and are now bearing the name of what they are supposed to do – “Justice.”
The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of Our Supreme Court who cannot rule correctly in a small complaint like recount of ballot papers should not be expected to be a reliable Supreme Court Bench. Jesus the Christ, the Lord and Master of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence of Our beloved Country Liberia says, “He who is faithful in small matters will be faithful in big matters. He who is not faithful in small matters will not be faithful in big matters,” (Luke 16:10). If a small matter like request for recount of ballot papers can beat our Chief Justice and Associate Justices of Our Supreme Court, what other prove do we need to know that Our country Liberia is an unsafe place? St. Barnabas! Pray for us.
CONCLUSION
This excerpt from what I am writing aims at telling the public that when the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia said that I had no evidence they were not telling the truth. I had irrefutable evidences for electoral fraud and irregularities. When they said that if a recount were done I would not win, they were not telling the truth. I won the election but they conspired to rob me of my victory.
As I come to end of this article I need to ask whether every case investigated and ruled on by the Supreme Court of Liberia can be a precedent of any case that comes after? Is similarity in nature not to be sort if a case and its ruling should be considered a precedent?
I didn’t expect the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of Our Country’s Supreme Court to inflict injustice on me or any Liberian. Worse of all, I never thought that the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of Our Country’s Supreme Court would ever lie on me or any Liberian. But that is what they chose to do to me as if being a representative was my birthright which they had to take from me at all cost. They, like the National Elections Commission of Liberia had the authority, but not the right, to rob me of my victory. But why should they lie on me? So I write to let everyone know that they lied on me.
Originally, I only felt the loneliness caused by the Supreme Court of Liberia driving away everyone who accompanied me to the Supreme Court and making sure I was alone in the Courtroom of the Supreme Court. I later discovered why they wanted me to be alone. After they read their article on “Fraud and Evidence” which they call their ruling, I realized that my isolation by them was meant to deprive me of having anybody from my camp to bear witness to the hearing or the ruling.
While I hold the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Liberia responsible for depriving the People of Electoral District Number Two Montserrado County Liberia of the Representative they chose, I cannot drop my pen without saying that this kind of game would not have been played if the National Elections Commission of Liberia had not organized it and blown the whistle for it to start.
To my Catholic sisters, Davidetta Browne and Ernestine Morgan, your presence on the Board of Commissioners of the National Elections Commission of Liberia gave me hope. We, Catholics, believe we are saved by faith, but not by faith alone. We Catholics believe, as the Great Apostle St. James says, “Faith without good deeds is dead,” (James 2:26). We Catholics have this saying from our Tradition: “The voice of the people is the voice of God.” Through the casting of ballots, the people speak – “Your will be done.” For God’s will to be done is the Catholic way of life. So for you, my Catholic sisters Davidetta and Ernestine, to be on the Board of Commissioners of the National Elections Commission of Liberia, and God’s will for Electoral District Number Two Montserrado County Liberia was blocked by the National Elections Commission of Liberia, should not be overlooked by you. You did not do it to me. You did not do it to the People of Electoral District Number Two Montserrado County Liberia. You did it to God. You challenged God.
Even when I, your Catholic brother, was making efforts for God’s will to be done in Electoral District Number Two Montserrado County, Getrude, our younger Catholic sister who you appointed Election Supervisor of Electoral District Number Two Montserrado County, was boasting in public saying, “No matter what Bishop Donyen does, he will never win.” This is sad. For a Catholic to say this is sad. Our Catholic will is ” May God’s will be done.” St. Barnabas! Pray for us.
Comments are closed.