-Court to continue with the case
Liberia’s former Chief Justice, Cllr. Gloria Musu Scott, just spent her third night under incarceration at the Monrovia Central Prison after the Monrovia City Court on Friday, June 23, 2023, denied a motion to Admit to Bail former Chief Justice Gloria Musu Scott and three others who are charged with murder, criminal conspiracy, and making false statements to law enforcement officers.
This decision by the court came after Cllr. Scott was dragged to the South Beach Prison upon being charged by the police and hours after
Magistrate L. Ben Bargo of the Monrovia City Court reminded her on Thursday, June 23, 2023, that the court needed time to make a better determination before rendering judgment in the defense council appeal of right to bill, which her legal team requested.
Cllr. Gloria Musu-Scott, Gertrude Newton, Rebecca Y. Wisner, Alice Johnson, and others were brought before the Monrovia City Court, Temple of Justice Building, to answer to the charges of Murder, Criminal conspiracy, and False Reporting to Law Enforcement officials.
based upon the oath and complaint of the Republic of Liberia by and through the Ministry of Justice.
But the team of lawyers representing the former chief justice prayed to the court to grant the former chief justice the bill of rights, stating that a person cannot be charged with a capital offense without an indictment from the grand jury.
The defense in the argument sighted 13.1 of the criminal procedure law of Liberia, which provides that a person in custody for the commission of a capital offense shall, before conviction, be entitled as a matter of right to be admitted to bail unless the proof is evident or the presumption is great that he is guilty of the offense.
Again on Saturday, June 24, 2023, the Court maintained that it has no jurisdiction over the crime of murder with which the former Chief Justice and three other defendants were charged.
“This Court has no trial jurisdiction over the crime of murder with which the defendants are charged. The only action this court can take in a matter brought before it over which another court has original trial jurisdiction is to conduct a preliminary hearing, particularly if requested by the defendants upon their appearance in court”.
Magistrate Ben Barco of the Monrovia City Court at the Temple of Justice told the court on Friday that the defendants waived their rights to said hearing by failing to request it.
“Article 21 paragraph d (i) of the constitution of the Republic of Liberia states that the accused persons shall be bailable upon their personal recognizance or by sufficient sureties, depending upon the gravity of the charge, unless charged for capital offenses or grave offenses as defined by law,” and murder is one of those grave offenses.
Section 14.l of the New Penal Law of Liberia grades Murder as a felony of the first degree, which makes it grave. Magistrate Barco noted.
He added that under the New Judiciary Law amended by Chapter 7, Section 7.3, the jurisdiction of magistrate Courts in criminal proceedings only extends to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-degree misdemeanors and not to felonious offenses.
“The defense application to admit defendants to bail heavily relied on Chapter 13, Sub-section 13. l of the Criminal Procedure Law captioned Right to Bail. Paragraph one of this law provides that “A person in custody for the commission of a capital offense shall, before conviction, be entitled as a matter of right to be admitted to bail unless the proof is evident or the presumption is great that he is guilty of the offense.
The second part of that same section also provides that “On the hearing of an application for admission to bail made before indictment by a person in custody for the commission of a capital offense, the burden of showing that the proof is evident or the presumption is great that he is guilty of the offense is on the Republic.
He added that there must be a forum where the state will present the facts to be assessed by the court. “In this instance, the opportunity that defense counsels missed was that they should have asked the court for a preliminary examination to afford the court the opportunity to hear the evidence of the state.
