Monrovia — A team of lawyers, weighing in on the Supreme Court's ruling against three attorneys recently suspended say their colleagues were not dishonest and did not present fake documents to qualify for admission to the Supreme Court Bar.
On Friday, June 14, 2024, during the admission of 31 qualified attorneys, the Honorable Supreme Court deferred the applications of three lawyers for admission as Counselors-At-Law until October 15, 2027.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion delivered by Her Honor, Justice Jamesetta Howard Wolokolie, cited dishonesty and premature application as reasons for the deferral. Additionally, the court fined the counselors who signed the attorneys' petitions and affidavits $500 each for failing to perform due diligence.
However, an independent investigation by a team of reporters found that the three lawyers submitted their documents in accordance with section 17.6 of the New Judicial Law. These documents were reviewed and cleared by the Supreme Court before their names were forwarded to the examiners' committee for evaluation.
Speaking anonymously, some of the admitted attorneys explained that all applicants were required to obtain clearances from the Grievance and Ethics Committee, the local and National Bar Associations, confirming they were free from ethical issues and in good standing. The clearances obtained by the attorneys read as follows:
National Bar Association: "This letter confirms that Attorney ... is an outstanding member of the Liberia National Bar Association (LNBA), who is in good standing and has obtained his license for 2024."
Ethics Committee: "After a careful perusal of our records and case dockets, I am pleased to verify that Attorney ... has not had any complaint/investigation involving him and before the Grievance and Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court and there is also no matter pending against him. The Committee hereby finds the Attorney to be in good standing."
Local Bar: "This is to certify that Attorney ... is a member of our county bar in good standing for the year 2024."
The investigation confirmed that these clearances were reviewed by the Supreme Court, as required under section 17.6, which states that the court, upon being satisfied with the petitioners' qualifications, forwards the names to the Ethics Committee and the National Board of Examiners Committee.
The team of lawyers challenged the Supreme Court's ruling of dishonesty, questioning how the attorneys could be dishonest when their petitions were approved by Supreme Court counselors and reviewed by the court before submission for evaluation. They noted that given that the Supreme Court is the highest court, its initial clearance of the attorneys should have precluded further scrutiny.
Further, the attorneys had to answer a thirteen-page ethical questionnaire and pay $1,200 each in examination fees before writing the bar exam. The application process is a preliminary step to determine eligibility, and the law only requires attorneys to have been actively practicing law for five years, not necessarily beyond five years, with proof being their licenses and a certificate of admission date.
The lawyers also revealed that the Supreme Court failed to provide due process to the attorneys, unlike in previous cases where due process was observed. Article 20(a) of the 1986 Constitution stipulates that no person shall be deprived of rights without due process of law. Section 17.7(2) of the New Judicial Law requires that attorneys be given the charges against them and an opportunity to defend themselves, which was not done in this case.
Notably, when our reporter requested the committee's report from the Clerk of the Supreme Court, it was disclosed that the report was not available. This raises concerns about transparency and due process.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Members of the Moral and Ethics Committee, speaking anonymously, revealed that the attorneys were briefly interviewed after the exam, with the main question being whether they applied before the required time. The investigation found disagreements among committee members regarding the severity of the punishment.
The "excessive" punishment of the attorneys, the investigation uncovers, appears to stem from misrepresentation and misinformation provided to the court by the committee. The committee's report, which is a public document, should be made available to ensure transparency and fairness.
Despite the Supreme Court's decision, the affected lawyers refrained from commenting, citing the authority of the court. This highlights the broader issue of the judiciary's excessive power and the fear among legal professionals of challenging its decisions.
