-Investigation proves that S-Court disqualified Attorneys met all requirements
By G. Bennie Bravo Johnson
An investigation into the recent suspension of three attorneys by the Supreme Court has revealed that they met all requirements for admission. The attorneys were disqualified by the Supreme Court during the admission of 31 qualified attorneys on June 14, 2024. Their applications for admission were deferred until October 15, 2027, with a fine of US$500.00 each imposed for allegedly submitting dishonest documents.
However, an independent investigation by this paper has found that the attorneys submitted their documents in accordance with the court’s requirements. They were cleared by the Supreme Court before their names were submitted to the examiners committee for evaluation. Additionally, other attorneys who were admitted stated that all applicants were required to obtain clearance from the Grievance and Ethics Committee, as well as local and National Bars Associations, before being considered for admission.
It appears that the attorneys were unfairly disqualified by the Supreme Court, as they had met all necessary requirements for admission. The court’s ruling and imposition of fines on the attorneys may have been based on a misjudgment of the situation.
For instance, clearance obtained from the National Bar Association reads “ this letter is to confirm that Attorney … is an outstanding member of the Liberia National Bar Association (LNBA), who is in good standing and has obtained his license for 2024” while the Ethics Committee clearance reads “after a careful perusal of our records and case dockets, I am pleased to verify that Attorney … has not had any complaint/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 reads “This is to Certify that Attorney … is a member of our county bar in Good Standing for the year 2024”.
The investigation gathered that these clearances were reviewed consistent with the second paragraph of the court ruling which states that “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 the ruling of the Honorable Supreme Court is respected, the investigation conducted conversely disagree with the court that the attorneys were dishonest in their applications.
Bringing a thought of How could the attorneys be dishonest when their petitions were approved by counselors of the Supreme Court Bar and same were rectified by the Supreme Court Bench through its review process before submitting lawyers names for evaluation?
The fact that the Supreme Court cleared the attorneys, they should not have been subjected to any other scrutiny because the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land as its decision is final.
Further, the Attorneys were subjected to answer thirteen page ethical questions before sitting the exam while they were also charged US$1, 200.00 each for examination fee before writing the bar exam.
How can the Attorneys be dishonest for 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 Honorable Supreme Court Bar and what are the requirements?
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 counsellor of that Court”.
The law only requires that an attorney who has been actively engage in the practice of law [for] five years not after five years. Some senior lawyers contacted during our independent investigation said [for] 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 are the attorney five licenses. Again, speaking under condition of anonymity to this paper, some of the newly admitted attorneys, said primarily, the only show of proof for active practice of law are the attorneys five licenses for the five years and the certificate of that contain a date of admission.
According to the lawyers, this can be followed by 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.
Our investigation further reveals that under section 17.6 of the 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 examing 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”.
The fundamental principle of law that is well known as “lay people” is that all accused persons must be accorded due process which hears before it condemned. Unlike in other previous cases like Atty. Julius Addy and Cllr. Nwanbudike formerly LACC who were accorded due process, the attorneys were not given any due process in this matter.
The 1986 Constitution has profoundly spoken emphatically on the principle of due process in Article 20 (a) which 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 in accordance with due process of law”.
Also, Section 17.7 subsection 2 of the New Judicial Law provides that “before an attorney or counsellor at law is suspended or removed, copy of the charges against him must be delivered to him personally or, in case it is established to the satisfaction of the Chief Justice that he cannot with due diligence be served personally a copy of the charges, may be served upon him by mail, publication or otherwise as the Chief Justice may direct; and in either event he must be allowed an opportunity of being heard on his defense”. These were not done in this case.
What was astonishing during this investigation was that when our reporter visited the Clerk of the Supreme Court and requested for the committees report on the attorneys, the clerk informed our reporter that the committee’s report was not available because the report was not in the possession of the clerk but could only provide the court ruling.
This disclosure that the clerk was not in the possession of the committees’ reports which contains its recommendations is more than what that meets the eyes and is worrisome.
According to some members of the Moral and Ethics Committee who spoke under condition of anonymity, the attorneys were invited at the end of the exam for an interview that did not last beyond three to four minutes. The attorneys according to our source were asked only one question “whether or not they applied before time?”
When the attorneys replied no, they were given copy books to write their understanding of the law that lasted not more than five minutes and the interview ended. According to this source, there were some disagreement amongst the committee’s members over the excessive punishment of the lawyers.
Also, the investigation further established that the standard employed by the committee to investigate and disqualify the attorneys felt far short to the due process requirements impose by section 17.7 subsection 2 of the New Judiciary Law, Article 8, Article 11 (c) and Article 20 (i) of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia which provide in pertinent parts that “all persons are equal before the law and are therefore entitled to the equal protection of the law and the right to counsel and the rights of counsel shall be inviolable.
The attorneys were never call in any forum to provide their side nor were they defended by counsels in these proceedings. The constitution instructs the Republic to direct its policy toward ensuring for all its citizens, without discrimination, opportunities for employment and livelihood of which the committee failed to have accorded the attorneys.
It is believe that the excessive punishment inflicted by the Honorable Supreme Court on the three lawyers was a result of a misrepresentation and misinformation provided by the committee to court.
The committees’ reports which is by law a public document should be made available to the public including the lawyers concerned. The unavailability of the committee’s report and its recommendation places the attorneys in an unfavorable light with the public and further undermines their economic livelihood with the public.
As stated early, both Cllr. Nwanbudeke Atty. Julius Addy who was similarly accused of wrong doing was given their days in court and had the opportunity to defend themselves, but not the others.
During this independent investigation, the affected lawyers were reluctant to speak to journalists. The attorneys who were inflicted with the maximum punishment could not comment on the Honorable Supreme Court decision adding the Supreme Court has spoken and that they had no comment on the court ruling.
All that is decipher is that given the excessive power of the court, the lawyers are afraid to be suspended if the court believes that their comment(s) tend to challenge the decision of the court.
