It has come to the attention of the Judiciary and members of the legal profession that the reputation of that branch of Government has repeatedly been impinged upon by several reports in the media, most especially a local talk show, the Costa Show. The Judiciary welcomes media reports on the system as it seems the most trusted way of letting the public know what obtains in our courts with respect to the court's responsibility of interpreting the law and ensuring that "justice is a done"-the ultimate objective of every legal practitioner. We take keen interest in media reports concerning the Judiciary with an eye for maintaining the integrity of the court-thereby ensuring public confidence in the system as "the last place of hope for man on earth". Significantly, unlike most leadership which when taking office would promise things that can be easily achieved and measured, given the capacity of the leadership, the current Bench of the Supreme Court of Liberia, the Korkpor Bench, made known to the President and the people of Liberia that its all-embracing agenda will be to work in a manner that will restore public confidence in the Judiciary-an overwhelming task which success cannot easily be guaranteed with certainty. However, we have witnessed that unprecedentedly the Chief Justice hasacknowledged members of the mass media, when speaking at public occasions and has encouraged wider coverage of the Judicial System, wherein he stated that the Judiciary under the Korkpor's Bench is a friend of the media. We are specifically concerned that a local talk show host has labelled a Justice of the Supreme Court by all sorts of disparaging character and has said that if the Chief Justice takes no action against his colleague, he, the local talk show host, will brand the Chief Justice as guilty by association and inaction. The show host further said that he too has gavel and referred to a letter from the Supreme Court addresses to him as arrogant because it gave an order rather that made a servile request. This talk show host normally speaks about the great things of the United States with, what I am inclined to term, great admiration, and hoping he has lived the US or one of the larger democracies, I wonder when has he even seen a judicial body, least to say the Supreme Court of any jurisdiction instruct a person in language with less strictness than that of the Liberian Supreme Court.Without meaning to be offensive to his person, statements such as the ones spewed out by the host the Costa Show can only but suggest his ignorance of the fact that unlike other branches of Government, the Judiciary is ill political, does not give what is term as advisory opinion (give advice barring call upon it by proper procedure to so act) in law, and his clear lack of knowledge of the processes by which courts operate, which undermines his ability to speak about the subject matter as objectively and informatively as he ought to have spoken, or perhaps would want to.

We would think that since this talk show host sounds like a young man and apparently avid to gain knowledge, he, rather than been subjective in the name of been a political commentator even though he uses the radio as his medium, and by that virtue is held or can be held to the same standard of a mass communicator, journalist, editor, publisher, station manager, news editor, and radio or print commentator; if he wants to be able to effectively discuss issues of law and of the administration of justice, he ought pursue one of the following two courses: (i)enrol in a law school in order that his understanding will more than the superficial construct of high school civics where one learns merely that the government or the state is administered by three branches, the Judiciary been one (ii) confer with a legal practitioner to seek appreciable level of understanding before taking to the radio to discuss a subject far-removed from his forte (area of specialty or understanding) as that of the Judiciary or the administration of justice.

We take no personal offense and therefore wish to give no offense, but we rather assume the responsibility, as all lawyers and officers of the court must, to deconstruct some of the misunderstandings of the Judicial System and the practice of law that may be harboured by members of the public and birthed by misinformation in the media by pundits, some of whom are well-meaning, but simply lack understanding to satisfactorily discussed specialized areas such as the court and the administration of the law; that is why it is reasonable to hire (and some media outlets do) a legal practitioner to comment on issues of law and justice, rather than leave it to any one (reporter or commentator) who has merely shown some prowess at expressing words before a microphone or scripting words to paper.

It may be important to note here that irrespective of what is said in the media about justices, judges, they will not or they ought not to "be swayed away by partisan demands, public clamor, or consideration of personal popularity or notoriety, nor be apprehensive of unjust criticisms". - Judicial Canon Sixteen, Judicial Canons For The Moral And Ethical Conduct Of Judges. However, lawyers, judges, justices, other judicial officers, and perhaps every responsible citizen and resident, are responsible to preserve the integrity of the court and consequently cannot allow unabated for matters of the court to be misrepresented and speculated in the media as there lies the tendency to erode confidence in the Judiciary and in its place the possibility of a chaotic, lawless society where everyone sees his or herself as been the author of the law which he/she shall live by- a state we all, be you a lawyer or not, must endeavour to see never come to pass.A. Dorris Banks-Henries said in her book, Civics for Liberian Schools that "man by nature is selfish, if left to do as he pleases, he will gain all that his brute strength permits and that persuasion can gain from others"- we will not have such a state of affairs and must imperatively act to avert or prevent such occurrence. A student of mass communication who has studied Media Law & Ethics, under which court reporting ( a specialized reporting)falls will well be in knowledge of this fact and be verse in getting and interpreting information from and about the court, albeit, his or her limited knowledge of the law.

At this stage since we entertain the view that information about the court that is misrepresented in the media is done mostly on the basis of the lack of knowledge on the part of the authors we shall now take the time to exert ourself in impacting some knowledge about the Liberian Judicial Branch of Government, how to obtain information therefrom that can meet the media standard of accuracy, balance and clarity, and in so doing disassemble some of these misconceptions and insinuations that are so hurting to the court and has the propensity to further diminish confidence in the judiciary.

LIMITATIONS ON JUDGES INTERACTION WITH THE MEDIA

Justices, judges, magistrates, and to a certain extent court officers have some crucial limitations on the extent to which they can interact with members of the mass media. We underscore crucial because a judge is required to be fundamentally careful to ensure that the interests of parties having a cause (case) before him or the court over which he presides, not to be prejudiced by members of the media and the public. To that effect Rule 11 of the General Rules Applicable In All Courts of Liberia states that "Proceedings in court shall be conducted with fitting dignity and perfect decorum, the taking of photographs in the courtroom during sessions of the court or recess between sessions and recording of live broadcast or televising of court proceedings are calculated to allow lawyers to grandstand, detract the witness in giving his testimony, degrade the court and create misconceptions with respect thereto in the mind of the public and hence shall not be permitted".-Rules For Procedure In The Courts. By the usage of the word grandstand, the rule means lawyers should be concerned about the cause of his client and the application of the law to the relevant facts which mark said cause and not to show off to impress spectators (people visiting the court, among them media practitioners) in hope of receiving publicity and achieving popularity-activities or proceedings in courts are not for pomp and pageantry.

Moreover, jurors are laymen (people without expert knowledge or specialized training in the law) and while they serve the state in the function of jury, they are not prevented from reading newspapers, listening to radio, or watching television, and their decision may therefore be influenced by the what they hear, read, or see in media reportage, notwithstanding the facts of the case. Except with minimum exceptions, this situation is not peculiar to the Liberian Judicial System.The obligation of safeguarding court information and processes in order that no party (side) is adversely affected falls overridingly within the province of the judge. Accordingly, despite the fact that members of the media sometimes approach judges for interviews (an action that is not support by Media Law & Ethics of Mass Communication), the law requires that "A judge should not permit private interviews, arguments or communications designed to influence his judicial action, where interests to be affected thereby are not represented before him, except in cases where provision is made by law for ex parte application".-Canon Twenty-Four, Judicial Canons For The Moral And Ethical Conduct Of Judges. Further, a justice, judge or anyone holding a judicial office must be careful in what he expresses or reveals to the media for the simple fact that anything he speaks on has the potential to come to court and before him, and his prior speech would render him compromised for he would have already given his opinion. The prime leaning here is that a judge speaks thorough his rendered judgments and opinions after conscientious examination of all facts before him with respect to a particular case before him. A judge may only speak about procedures and structure of the court and not about the circumstances of any case that has not been finalized. This situation brings us the question of how one may be able to get information from the courts given the restrictions on judicial officials- a subject discussed infra.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION IN THE JUDICIARY

This, it would seem is the most problematic area for most journalists and media practitioners who often tend to employ the general standards of news reporting to an area as specialized as the administration of law which requires specialized reporting. Media practitioners in their strive to observe news elements of prominence and timeliness on occasion get frustrated in that while the element of prominence would "ordinarily" suggest that you go to a prominent source which would be authoritative, which to the ordinary mind would mean an interview with the judge; this is a situation which is unlikely to occur in a judicial system because judges are usually reluctant to speak with the press, and are even cautioned against doing so through Judicial Canons which regulate how judges, and by extension, their staff should comport themselves. Additionally, regarding media actors meeting the news element of timeliness, this is where the media tend to injure the court more often than not; they want to be the first to bring the information to the public, against their competitors to the extent that they occasionally speculate the outcome of cases making the news- an action detrimental to both the court and the parties before it. Correspondingly, efforts need to be made at balancing the reporters' desire to make his report within time, as determined by the management of the outlet with which he or she works, with the public need to have confidence in the judicial system as the only unswervingforum for settling disputes, thereby preserving the peace of the nation. Many of these issues are discussed at length under courses of Mass Communication, and not merely in the field of law. We are able to speak to this subject with authority as we, prior to pursuing the field of law studied and practiced the art of mass communication with a degree and multiple professional diplomas to evince.

There are four basic sources of news in the Liberian Judicial System, and perhaps in most, if not all judicial systems around the world: (i) Open Court (ii) Court Records (iii) Lawyers (iv) Judges

Open court

Open court is one of the sources of information gathering in court reportage. The current Bench of the Supreme Court has encouraged journalists to go in to open court, including the Supreme Court, and take news worthy notes for publication and broadcast. Anyone wanting to be able to speak about what goes on the courts and with the administration of law must be a devoted visitor of the court and observer of cases, rather than to proceed to make statements referencing the court based on hearsay. Media actors covering the court get more information when they are present in open court obviously because at this stage of the legal process of settling disputes, all of the individuals concerned with the case will be given the opportunity to make their separate presentations in the case. Defendants, who in general shy away from speaking to the press and members of the media community, are allowed to frankly, without reservation speak with clarity from his position the entire facts precipitating the case.Testimony of the defendant when being questioned by the lawyers is also a major aspect of open court reporting that a serious media practitioner intending to report on the court cannot afford to neglect.

Court records and minutes

Court records including minutes of the court is a major, perhaps the most reliable and respected source of information, since in fact judges usually speak through their judgments and opinions which form an integral component of the records of the court. Besides, minutes of the court normally recount all that happens in a case-and this is public document and may be requested for through set procedures. We submit to all members of the media, be you a commentator, editor, or reporter, that criticisms should reasonably be directed at the opinions or judgments of a justice or judge, if the one doing the criticisms action is well intentioned, and not merely to berate a person's character, as the host of the Costa Show tend to sound.

Lawyers

Lawyers, most especially prosecution, are usually willing to speak with the press regarding what is obtaining in the court, or in a case. They are capable of explaining the rudiments of the entire process and how it works within the legal context. The process includes things that happen in and out of court that constitutes the trail procedures. Another consequential element of regarding lawyers as sources of information in the court is the fact that they are best seated to explain legal jargons or terminology used in court or in the trail that media practitioners are covering and may need full appreciation of. However, because there is a tendency for a lawyer serving a counsel to one of the parties to a case (which may be the situation in most of the imbalance and unfounded reports about the Judiciary), give the press information which he believes is capable of influencing favourable outcome if broadcast or published, it is necessary to also engage independent lawyers who do not have any particular interest in the case, to explain some of the implications of what transpired in court if said lawyer has the time, in order to do the due diligence of disseminating balanced story.

Judges

Except that the Judicial Canons for the Moral and Ethical Conduct of Judges in the Liberian Judicial System limits what a judge can say about issues and cases, judges should be viewed as facilitators of the work of reporters covering the courts. They facilitate by making accessible to the press accurate and timely information about the system and the procedures by which the court functions. The information herein referred to include written rulings, orders, and notices. Judges may speak about policies regarding the administration of justice in the country, however, as stated supra, it is important to note that a judge is not allowed to speak on public policy issues or cases that could likely come to court for his determination in order to steer clear of been compromised, as this situation not only compromises the integrity and impartiality of the judge, but also that of the court over which he presides and by extension, the entire Judiciary.

THE PROCESS OF SEEKING RECOURSE AGAINST JUSTICES, JUDGES & OTHER JUDICIAL OFFICERS

On the Thursday, July 9th edition of the Costa Show, the host called on the Supreme Court to assign and hear the "Hans Williams Case" in again a fashion that demonstrates his total ignorance and witlessness about the law and accompanying processes. For yours and all that may be in the dark concerning legal processes and how the court operates with respect to the assignment of cases, the court doesn't normally just assign cases on its own or by itself, but rather, a case is, as a matter of standard and procedure only assigned when a lawyer representing one of the parties, usually the complaining party, applies to the court through established and traditional procedures and processes, for the court to assigned a particular case; the court is moved to act by a party through its lawyer and by standard procedures, and not merely by someone sitting on radio and calling on the court to act-it would be far more beneficial to both media practitioners, including the host of the "Costa Show" to gain understanding before venturing into discussing a subject that they neither have knowledge nor understanding of. If you so have innate interest in any given case, you ought to rather than call on the court by way of radio to assign the case, called the lawyer to make application for the assignment of the case; as it is said in rudimentary legal parlance, "the court will not do for party litigant what he ought to do for himself"-please be informed.

Perhaps the most important piece of information we need to give to anyone who has a problem with a justice, judge, or lawyer is that there are two mechanisms by which grievances against a lawyer or judge can be redressed. Lawyers and judges are required to be committed to the ethics and rules of the legal profession as to act contrarily would subject a lawyer to disciplinary action through the Ethics and Grievance Committee of the National Bar. "And in the case of a judge, thru the Judiciary Inquiry Commission of the Supreme Court".-Rule 14, Code of Moral and Professional Ethics.

If you notice impropriety in the action of your lawyer, or any lawyer, as a matter of fact, the proper route to take would be to formally complain said lawyer to the Ethics and Grievance Committee of the National Bar which would subsequently, upon completion of its investigation, submit and recommend to the Chief Justice the nature of action to be taken against the lawyer, if he/she is found to be wanting. Said complaint may be channeled through the Office of the Chief Justice.

In the case of an Associate Justice or a judge being the offender, the law is that "An Associate Justice, two Judges of Court of Record, the President of the Liberian National Bar Association and Chairman of the Grievance and Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court shall constitute a Judiciary Inquiry Commission with the exclusive power and authority to receive and investigate complaint against Judges of Courts of record and non record in the Republic of Liberia for violation of any provision of the Judicial Canons.

The Chief Justice shall appoint members of the Commission and the Associate Justice shall be the Chairman of the Commission and the Chairman of the Grievance and Ethics Committee shall serve as Secretary to the Commission.

The Chief Justice and two Associate Justices appointed by the Chief Justice shall constitute the Commission whenever an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court is involved."-Canon Forty, Judicial Canons For the Moral and Ethical Conduct of Judges.

We assume you will harness the pieces of information given in this exposition and know that multiple remedies are at your disposal should you, members of the media and the public have any problem with a lawyer, judge or justice. Better still, if you wish to see a judge or justice removed from office based on what you hold as unethical conduct, you could elect to follow the path of impeachment should you not wish to exhaust the remedies offered by the Judiciary. This is the more civil way to proceed instead of execrating a judicial officer on the radio simply because you have to a radio and its attending audiences-the greater harm manifest in eroding public confidence in the Judiciary-a counter to stability of the state in particular and democracy in general; something a well-meaning Liberian will consider before laying assault on the integrity of the Judiciary and it officers.

COURT'S RECOURSE AGAINST MALIGNINGPUBLICATION

We would not have you ignorant that one is generally and unconditionally insulated from judicial action by the Article 15 of the Liberian Constitution or the freedom of speech and of the press clause. In fact, it is only the Judiciary, under normal circumstance rather than a state of emergency, which has the authority to limit the freedom of speech as held in Article 15 (e). A person, within the intent and spirit of Article 15 of the Constitution, has right to freedom of speech, unrestricted, to the extent that he does not abuse said right and uses it to unjustifiably defame others. We underscore the usage of the word unjustifiably taking into account that truth is a complete and affirmative defence to defamation. It is the Court that sets the standard as to what constitutes abuse of the right to freedom of speech and of the press. Among the remedies at the disposal of the Court is the employ of its contempt power, which more often than not, the Court hesitates to bring to bear. Our laws are replete with the postulation that an action that embarrasses or calls the Court's integrity in to question is contemptuous. We hope that the Court will not be pushed that far.

CONCLUSION

In the words of Chief Justice Francis S. Korkpor, Sr, "the Judiciary will infinitely be protective of freedom of speech and of the press, and will allow the continuing media coverage, and at time criticism, of the Judiciary as long as the criticisms are directed at the opinions of the Court. We only hope that they will be responsible in their reportage". We believe in the wisdom of the Chief Justice to uphold, more than at any time, press freedom and freedom of expression based on his track record of representing the rights of media outlets and media executives, during the regime of former President Charles Taylor, when he served as Chairman of the Board of the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission. Prominent among those media outlets and executives he represent are the New Democrat, the Inquirer, and the Radio Veritas. Such a Chief Justice can no doubt do nothing to restrain press freedom, but he, in association with his colleagues has the burden to preserve the integrity of the legal profession and the Court, and so would hope that rather than media persons using invectives on judicial officers, they would seek to act responsibly by gaining appreciably knowledge of the Judiciary and accompanying process, and balancing their stories in a bid to make certain that their reportage and comments on Judiciary do not serve as a catalyst to erode confidence in our courts-Liberia is, and must remain "a nation of laws and not of men".

Richard J. Scott, Jr. holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Mass Communication and is a graduate of the Louis Arthur Grimes School of Law.