Arson Suspects Run To Supreme Court

Arson-Suspects-Run-To-Supreme-Court

The alleged arson attackers in the burning of the Capitol Building through their lawyers have taken flight to the Chambers Justice of the Supreme Court Yamie Qui-qui Gbeisay, after Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie reaffirmed the ruling of the Monrovia City Court Magistrate L. Ben Barco, in the Motion to Suppress Evidence and Return Property to the defendants.

Defendants Thomas Etheridge and Eric Susay on Monday, February 17, 2025, ran to the Supreme Court with a writ of Certiorari following the denial of their motion.

The Writ of Certiorari is seeking the high court to review a decision made by Magistrate Barco which was also upheld by Judge Willie on February 6, 2025.  Magistrate Barco denied the defense lawyers’ motion on grounds that the pieces of evidence produced in court were done in the presence of the defense lawyers and they had sufficient time to have filed their motion.

Magistrate Barco in his ruling said he cannot do for a part what it ought to do for itself. However, the defense lawyers accepted the Judge’s ruling and took an appeal to the Circuit Court, Criminal Court A.

Based upon this, Judge Willie then denied the motion in summary proceedings based upon the time and manner in which the motion was filed especially when defense lawyers were present during the time prosecution was producing evidence at the Magisterial Court.

Judge Willie adjudged on two issues to include, the purpose of the preliminary examination and whether or not did the petitioner really suffer waiver and lashes, for which the Magistrate’s ruling should be affirmed or reversed?

Speaking on the issue of preliminary examination, the judge said according to the jurisdiction of Liberia, it is conducted by a lower court that does not have trial jurisdiction over a case. It is the right of the defendant, and if the defendant requests so, the Magisterial Court is compelled to listen and examine the evidence presented by the prosecution for the purpose to find out as to whether a crime was committed and there is likelihood that the crime that was committed points to the accused.

Hearing from the parties, Judge Willie said they stated that the Magistrate has not yet made a ruling in the preliminary examination conducted; assuming but not admitting that the Magistrate were to hold the defendant/petitioner to answer to the charge levied against him, the issues that were concluded by the magisterial court, the circuit court will not reference those issues that were concluded, which might afford the petitioner an opportunity to file any motion, new or fresh, before the circuit court, were the state lawyers to present evidence.

Making it clear, the Judge stated that the statement made against the backdrop was probable cause as a result of the ruling of the Preliminary Examination by the Magistrate. Conversely, if no probable cause is found, Thomas and Eric who are the petitioners will be set free by the Magistrate.

Ruling on the second issues as to whether the defendants suffered waiver and lashes, Judge Willie said that he agrees with the ruling of the Respondent, Magistrate Ben Barco, because defendants Etheridge and Susay through their lawyers sat supinely when these evidence were being produced and marked by the Magistrate Court during the proceedings, and the defendants never objected to same or filed any Motion to Suppress Evidence and Return Property until the Preliminary Examination was finalized and final arguments and ruling were going to be made.

He agreed with the ruling of the magistrate that they suffered waiver and lashes affirmed and confirmed the ruling of the magistrate, lifting the stay order placed on the case and mandating the magistrate to proceed with the final arguments and make subsequent ruling based on the facts and circumstances.

The defense lawyers prayed the court  to grant the said Motion and order government lawyers to return co-movants/co-defendants’ personal properties, and have all evidence suppressed and grant unto all further relief deem proper, legal and equitable under the given circumstances.

Defense lawyers’ motion said a search warrant serves an important function; prohibiting a search without warrant is permitted not to shield criminals, not to make the home a haven for illegal activities, but rather that an objective mind might weigh the need to invade that privacy to enforce the law.

“The right of privacy has been deemed too precious to be left solely to the discretion of those whose job is the detection of crime and the police before they violate the privacy of homes”. The search warrant evidences a judicial determination that there is probable cause to believe that the person or thing to be seized is within the premises to be searched…” the defense argued.

They objected to the said application and contended that Louis Jayjay was not a “Police Technician” but rather an employee of the National Security Agency, for which the Prosecution was fined the amount of US$100.00.

The motion said the Assistant Director for Cyber Security of the NSA, Hon. Louis Jayjay, was sworn under oath to unlock defendant Etheridge’s phone, amongst other things.

But Prosecution’s resistance to the Movant’s motion at the Magisterial Court states that the motion filed by the defendants’ lawyers is not different from the main issue scheduled for arguments which was argued on February 6, 2025.

The respondent/ prosecution prayed court to deny and dismiss the motion entirely. Further to their four counts, prosecution lawyer Cllr. Richard Scott Jr. said the argument contained in the defense motion that they obtained the search and seizure warrant at a later date is false and misleading, and called on the court to take judicial notice of the records.

Prosecution prayed the court to deny and dismiss the defense motion as contained in their counts. The defendants were charged with multiple crimes ranging from Arson, Criminal Mischief, Criminal Conspiracy, Arson Solicitation, and Criminal Attempt to Commit Murder.

Meanwhile, the Chambers Justice of the Supreme Court had placed a stay order on the matter as he cited the both parties to a conference on February 18, 2025, in connection to the case.

By T.Q. Lula Jaurey    

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *