The assigned Judge of the Sixth Judge Circuit Civil Law Court George W. Smith is expected to hand down final ruling today Monday, January 27, 2025, in the case between House embattled Speaker J. Fonati Koffa and coup d’etat styled Speaker of the the House of representative Richard Nagbe Koon.
The judge last week heard arguments between both sides and reserved ruling following lawyers representing the Minority bloc headed by embattled Speaker Koffa calling on Judge Smith to investigate threats made by members of the Majority Bloc lawmakers headed by now Speaker Koon.
Cllr. Saymah Syrenius Cephas who is representing embattled Speaker Koffa (Minority Bloc) filed a Bill of Information to the Civil Law Court which clearly states that Koon and his Majority Bloc issued public threats against Judge Smith both in the session, at a public gathering and on a radio station, that they would impeach the judge if he continues to take seize of the case ruling in a manner and form adversative to their interest.
Cllr. Cephas and former Associate Justice Kabineh J’aneh told the court that the information for Judge Smith’s hearing is necessary, that the Judge may proceed to conduct an investigation into such threat when applicable and he may take evidence to allow the Minority Bloc to produce evidence about the threats made against him, published in newspaper and on radio, for the safety and integrity of the court which is protected under Article 73 of the 1986 Constitution that forbids the arrest in summoning or the investigation of any Judge for a decision or opinion or a judge rendered in any matter.
Cllrs. Cephas and J’aneh’s submission was prior to the arguing of the Motion To Dismiss filed by the Majority Bloc’s lawyer, Cllr. H. Varney Sherman, that the independence and integrity of a Judge is constitutionally inviolable and that is for the court to be immune from process bordering on arrest, investigation or summoning for a decision rendered pursuant to the statute of said court.
The motion comes as a result of a petition for a declaratory judgment filed by embattled Speaker Koffa and his team members.
Praying the court, Cephas and J’aneh said: “Wherefore and in view of the foregoing and to protect the independence and integrity of this Court, it is the prayer of the Petitioners/Respondents that Your Honor will cause the conduct of an investigation to establish the veracity of this allegation and thereafter proceed with any further hearing in this matter.”
But Cllr. Sherman, who filed the motion to dismiss, argues that they have not heard or are aware of any of the species of information given by Cllr. Cephas.
Cllr. Sherman says that amid the oral presentation made by the Minority Bloc on records, is a sound defect in that, Respondents’ Counsel himself says that the information that has come to their attention is no basis for the impeachment of a Judge.
Sherman: “Respondents’ (minority bloc) Counsel himself had said that the Judge is protected by the Constitution which means that, assuming without admitting, that any of the Movants had lay irresponsible, emotional and famous aggregation against Your Honor without any basis in law and having no constitutional ground, that should be the reason for Your Honor to postpone the hearing”?
He mentions that: “if the Movants (defendants) have assumed that the matter of the Declaratory Judgment proceedings could have been solved by them in their chambers,” they would not have hired a lawyer to appear in court to defend them.”
Cllr. Sherman indicates that Movants/Respondents in the Declaratory Judgment proceeding is good and sufficient evidence that Movants are ready to proceed with the matter in keeping with law, withstanding the meritless nature of the aforesaid Declaratory Judgment proceeding.
“Wherefore and in view of the foregoing, as the law provides that the Motion to Dismiss shall vehemently give attention in all matters; Movants (majority bloc) pray Your Honor to proceed with the hearing of the Motion to Dismiss as you have assigned,” Cllr. Sherman says.
In response to the submission and resistance thereto made by both the minority and majority blocs; the court states that there is a doctrine that says that he who receives the benefit must also be prepared to undertake the burden, prestige, honor and dignity attached to judgeship also go with the burden.
Judge Smith added that the burden includes threats to the judges’ life. If the Judge was to suspend cases because of threats he/she will not exercise his Constitutional and Statutory functions as a Judge.
He furthers that the main function of the Judge is to adjudicate cases. “Even yesterday I received numerous calls from my Wife that they would burn my house, and destroy my life and my family,” Judge Smith cried out.
Continuing, Judge Smith says he did not consider it important to suspend the trial to investigate those threats referred to by the Respondents/Petitioners are not unusual; the Bill of Information is noted and we shall proceed with the matter which is more important than a Judge receiving threat. However, one of the counsels for the Petitioners/Respondents (minority bloc) excepts.
By T.Q. Lula Jaurey
