The Inquirer (Monrovia)
C. Winnie Saywah
9 October 2008
The Resident Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court "B" at the Temple of Justice says that he has found no legal grounds and legal reasons to conform to an earlier request of the State prosecutors to disqualify him from presiding over further trials of Senator Roland Kaine and others in the Timor murder case.
Giving his ruling yesterday as it relates to the motion for recusal as filed by prosecution, Judge Korboi Nuta referred the aggrieved party to the Law of Liberia, citing 33 LLR and 30 LLR on pages 625 and 692 thereby clearing the mind of the prosecution as to what a judge can and cannot do in responding to a trial especially where one in a mere assertion in a former request is made to have him disqualify himself.
The court said that it has been mandated to hear and pass on all pre-trial motions and applications by the higher court, realizing that a request as given by the prosecution is in the right to any party before a court, provided that request meets legal and credible grounds.
At the court's 2nd chamber session last Wednesday, the State argued a submission which is requesting Judge Nuta to recuse himself because he has failed to demonstrate cool neutrality and that he had earlier alluded to the fact that prosecution had not provided convincing evidence for which the motion for admission to bail the detained defendant should not be granted.
Prosecution contended among other things that it is in its mind that the assigned judge has manifested partiality because the trial has not begun and therefore prays that the judge excludes himself from any further proceedings as a means of priority as provided for by law.
The defense objected to prosecution's request stating that at no time was the court ever inconsistent pointing out that the motion was made purposely to abort the hearing and irritate the judge.
During that last court sitting, there was an assignment for the motion for recusal to be held while the motion to hear the application to bail was already assigned the same day but it was agreed upon that the motion for recusal be heard first.
Counsel for the defendant further argued that the accusation made against the judge is false and should not distract him from passing on the issue as raised in said motion which they pray to be denied.
The defense argued that the motion written and submitted purposely to irritate the judge should be incorporated and argued since both motions contained the same issues except that the latter is an extraction.
Having listened to the requested submission and resistance of the parties, the court made it clear that that hearing into the motion for the admission to bail had been assigned but prosecution filed another motion later which did supersede the previous motion to which the court decided to pass on it before proceeding further.
The court which termed the lengthy application of the prosecution as immaterial and would be accorded no credence has assigned the hearing into the motion for admission to bail detained Senator Kaine on tomorrow, October 10, 2008.
In a related development, the Progressive Democratic Party Margibi County branch says it is concerned over the prolong detention of Senator Roland Kaine who has been duly elected by the people of the county.
In a statement issued Wednesday, it said it has observed that since the arrest and detention of the senator along with 14 others in June, the state has failed to produce evidence linking the senator to the commission of the crime.
According to the statement, which was signed by the chairman of the party's brand in the county, Mr. Stephen Mulbah, the party said 'justice delayed is justice denied' stressing that the situation is creating a worrisome situation in the minds of Margibians and the bereaved families.
The party called on the Ministry of Justice through the office of the Solicitor General to do all it could to produce the evidences in the case in their possession so as to facilitate the murder trial during the up-coming November term of court.
The party said failure on the part of the ministry to do so, would create doubt on the minds of the people of the county and the bereaved families as it relates to the course of justice in the case.
Read comments. Write your own.
Copyright © 2008 The Inquirer. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
I read your question "why can'ts the prosecuters encourage some of the suspects to spit the truth?"
From your question, I can see that you have not been following the case. I can tell that you do not know the area wher the murder took place. In addition, you do not know Senator Kaine. If you have been following this case, there were statements made at the day of the arrest at the police station and signed by various individuals. the prosecutors have brought several witnesses, and not one has direcely or indirectly connected Senator kaine to the murder. Besides, Senator Kaine does not own any piece of land inthat area. His farm is about four to five hours walk from the crimescend. one witness said that he talked to senator Kaine and the Senator told him to deal with them. the other witness said, he heard the senator talking to another person from a certain area. There is no connection of any cell phone in that area. Also, what puzzle me and other who follow this case in the U. S., What was the ruling of the lower court in Kakata? Why is it that the prosecutor did not allow the public to hear the ruling? Beside, What cell phone number did the witness called the Senator at?
This day Octber 26,2008. As a Liberian, I have never been diaappointed in any one in my life time as I am today disappointed in the justice system in Liberia, and judge Nuta of circuit criminal court B. As we all know the judge granted Sentator Roland Kaine bail. But, again the same judge has denied the his own bail.
The questions here are, Why did the Judge change his mind? What caused him to changed his mind? As I look back on this case, I am now becoming to belive that the whole case is very political. Is this because of the seat in Magibe county? Is some one trying to pay back what happened to him during the Charles Taylor Governmenton another person because of his affiliation? Again, Why did the Judge change change his mind? Did some one called the Judge before he rendered his decission, if so who did? Furthermore is it legal for the Solicitor General to ask the family members of the deceeds to go out and demostrate? And my question to Judge Nuta, What are, what happens when this adinistration is over? Where is the legal reason for you denying this bail?
I will first thank the writter of the article dated October 9, 2008, about the murder trial of Senator Roland Kaine. And I will thank Judge Nuta for his honesty and boldness. And I pray that all judges could follow his foot steps.
As I follow the case each day or time, there are several questions that I see unanswered.
(1) Are we seeing an abuse of power in this ase? (2) If the State has evidence, or proof that The senator was involved, Why is it not being produced? (3) Why did the State let case Charles Bennie Loose? (4)If Charles Bennie owns land in the area where the murder took place, Why is it that he did not get the villeager in that area to go and work on his farm land? (5) What happens if the State is not willing to produce the evidence against the Senator?
There are many other Questions but time can not permit me.
Thanks
Why can't the prosecutors encourage some the the suspects in the murder case to spit out the truth? This could infact help some of them have a lessor punishment while the big snake(Roland Kaine) face the full weight of the law. There must be some evidence somewhere, including at least two or one suspect.