Monrovia, June 23, 2024: Office of The War & Economic Crimes Court of Liberia says its attention has been drawn to a Press release by a select group of civil society organizations under the aegis of the Coalition for the Establishment of War and Economic Crimes Courts in Liberia and Human Rights Community of Liberia.
The key argument proffered by these civil society organizations is that the Executive Director of the Office of the War & Economic Crimes Court, Cllr. Jonathan T. Massaquoi, an astute and erudite lawyer with impeccable character is unqualified to head the Office of The War & Economic Crimes Court primarily because he provided legal representation for Madam Agnes Reeves Taylor, who was on trial in the United Kingdom for alleged war crimes during Liberia’s civil war, and a war crimes indictee from Sierra Leone, Mr. Gebril Massaquoi in a Finnish Court, as well as instituting multiple lawsuits against human rights defenders and institutions, who are the lead campaigners for the establishment of the war crimes court for many years.
The Office of the War and Economic Crimes Court is concerned that the argument has the propensity to sidetrack strives being made by the Country to break away from the culture of impunity, and institute justice and accountability, which will bring closure to our belligerent past, thus setting our Country on the trajectory to the adherence of the rule of law, these very few individuals have set up themselves as side track by manifesting unsolicited ignorance of how a criminal justice system both locally and internationally works to include the role of lawyers.
Against this backdrop and to create clarity in the minds of the vast majority of Liberians who sincerely and overwhelmingly welcome the establishment of the Office of the War and Economic Crimes Courts in Liberia, which is expected to ensure the setting up of the War and Economic Crimes Court in Liberia, the Office of The War & Economic Crimes Court counters the arguments, allegations, and conclusion proffered by this coalition of civil society organizations in the form and manner to wit:
- That Article 21. (i) of the 1986 Constitution states, “the right to counsel and the rights of counsel shall be inviolable. There shall be no interference with the lawyer-client relationship. In all trials, hearings, interrogatories, and other proceedings where a person is accused of a criminal offense, the accused shall have the right to counsel of his choice; and where the accused is unable to secure such representation, the Republic shall make available legal aid services to ensure the protections of his rights.
There shall be absolute immunity from any government sanctions or interference in the performance of legal services as a counselor or advocate; lawyers’ offices and homes shall not be searched or papers examined or taken save under a search warrant and court order; no lawyer shall be prevented from or punished for providing legal services, regardless of the charges against or the guilt of his client, no lawyer shall be barred from practice for political reasons.” [sic] Today, we hear Human Rights Advocates, who should be moral guarantors of the Constitution of Liberia in the protection of the fundamental rights of all citizens, including the right to equal opportunity for work and employment, and not only Accra Peace Accord of 2003, petitioning the Government of Liberia to openly violate Article 21 (1) only because of self-aggrandizement and appeasement, and not on the merit of any moral and ethical breach.
- That the non-interference with the lawyer-client relationship, and absolute immunity from any sanctions or interference in the performance of legal services as a counselor or advocate is not unique to Liberia but constitutes a fundament pillow of international crime law. The Office of War & Economic Crimes Court submits that the legal profession is the only profession/vocation that is constitutionally protected and, as such, no government can sanction or reprimand any lawyer for performing his/her constitutional duty. Moreover, all criminal defendants have a right to a lawyer of his/her choice in a criminal case, thus creating a lawyer-client relationship in which no government agency or court of law can deprive a lawyer from holding public office. Simply put, LAWYERS ARE NOT PARTY TO A CASE! There are litanies of precedents under both our criminal justice system and the international criminal justice system that allude to that fundamental principle; we shall take recourse to the International Criminal Court, (ICC), and the United States of America. On February 12, 2021, Mr. Karim Ahmad Khan was elected the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Before his election, Mr. Khan between 2006 and 2007 served as the lead defense counsel to former President, Charles Ghankay Taylor, and Mrs. Fatou Sankoh, wife of Foday Sankoh before the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). Second, the current Associate Justice of the Federal Supreme Court of the United States of America, Her Honor Ketanji Brown Jackson was a defense counsel for inmates at Guantanamo Bay charged with terrorism and other heinous crimes by the United States of America, and successfully representing those defendant’s legal interest; today she sits on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Now, to accept the faulty logic of these very few individuals and select groups of civil society organizations, that by Cllr. Massaquoi’s representation of the legal interest of persons allegedly accused of war crimes in Liberia makes him unqualified and compromised to serve as Executive Director of the Office of the War and Economic Crimes Court could equally mean that the Chief Prosecutor of the International Crime Court, Mr. Karim Ahmad Khan, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson are equally unqualified to occupy their current office—what a lazy and poor school of reasoning! On the contrary, these lawyers were performing their duties as defense attorneys. Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson during her confirmation on March 21, 2022, responding to this very question stated, “Under the ethics rules that apply to lawyers, an attorney (lawyer) must represent her client’s interest, refraining from contradicting her client’s legal arguments and/or undermining her client’s interest by publicly declaring the lawyer’s disagreement with the legal position, or alleged behavior of her client…” —what a succinct way to put it!
The Office of The War & Economic Crimes Court of Liberia wishes to state unequivocally that its Executive Director, Cllr. Jonathan T. Massaquoi is not conflicted by any stretch of imagination and he has demonstrated over his fifteen (15) years of legal practice to not only be outstanding, but very ethical and professional, and has not appeared before any grievance and ethics committee.
Cllr. Massaquoi has served as amicus curia (friend of the Court) to the Supreme Court of Liberia on cases involving ethical transgression and is committed and ever-resolved to lead a team of professionals poised to make sure that the mandate of said Office is achieved, and will not waste valuable time in the future responding to such diatribe.
On the other hand, the Office of The War & Economic Crimes Court of Liberia welcomes U.S. Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), Chair of the House Global Human Rights Subcommittee kind words on acknowledging President Boakai’s timely appointment of Cllr. Jonathan T. Massaquoi as the Executive Director, we can assure our partners both locally and internationally that the people of Liberia who suffered brutal human rights violations and economic crimes for many years shall get the justice they so deserve.
The Office says it remains open to engaging with civil society organizations that are sincerely and genuinely involved in the advocacy of accountability and the rule of law in Liberia.
