IN RE: CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HONOURABLE ISAAC LEVI FLOMO, CITY MAYOR, PAYNESVILLE CITY CORPORATION AND NATT ROOSEVELT, PAYNESVILLE CITY CORPORATION.
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
Heard: May 17, 2001. Decided: July 6, 2001.
1. Acts of disobedience to the orders of court and other acts of noncompliance and disrespect which are void of violence and do not render incompetent the constitutional judicial authority of the courts and/or judicial officials, or victimize the judiciary, continue to remain under the jurisdiction of the lower courts.
2. Contemptuous acts that allege violence on the persons and bodies of judicial officers and staff, and on court facilities, with intent to prevent and render useless and impotent the capacity of the court or the judicial officers and staff to perform their duties and responsibilities under the Constitution and laws of the Republic, transcend contempt of a particular court and rise to the threshold of contempt of the judiciary.
3. Violence, force, and torture used by a contemnor in the commission of contemptuous acts which instill fear and intimidation, and which have the effect of paralysis and inability on the court and judicial officials and staff to perform, require the attention and protection of the Supreme Court of Liberia.
4. By the use of force, violence, torture, and duress, with the intent, either express or implied, to halt or stay court proceedings in a matter, reverse or obtain other actions in an action from judicial officers, the contemnor assumes and exercises unlawful judicial power, authority, and control reserved by the Constitution and statute to the judiciary.
5. The judicial power of the Republic is vested in the Supreme Court and such subordinate courts as the Legislature may from time to time establish.
6. Allegations of contemptuous acts of violence, force, torture, duress and/or detention, committed by an alleged contemnor or persons acting under his or her control and direction, with the intention, either expressed or implied, to exercise judicial authority and control, by instilling fear and intimidation to compel and coerce judicial officials and/or ministerial officers and judicial staff, to prevent, reverse, amend, modify, or stay the execution of a court order and performance of the duties of a court, are cognizable before the Supreme Court of Liberia.
7. The Supreme Court has the inherent constitutional duty to protect the sanctity and dignity of the judicial power and authority of the Judiciary.
8. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over all alleged acts of contempt which violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers and which tend to undermine and render the authority and power of the Judicial Branch of the government impotent and useless, and thereby jeopardize the exercise and function of the democratic government.
9. Contempt proceedings for physical assaults on judicial officials and court officers and the ransacking of the courtroom, with the intent to exercise judicial control, are cognizable before the Supreme Court.
10. The contempt power of the Supreme Court cannot be limited by statute.
11. There is a radical difference between a constitutional court and a statutory court. The former is established by direct constitutional provision which therefore places limits on the Legislature’s right to pass laws concerning it.
12. The power to punish for contempt and to determine whether a contempt has been committed is inherent in all constitutional courts, and these cannot be limited by statute.
The respondents, the Mayor of the City of Paynesville and an employee in the Mayor’s office, were cited for contempt of court based upon the complaints of the Magistrate and Associate Magistrate of the Magisterial Court for the City of Paynesville. In their complaint, the magistrate and associate magistrate alleged that the respondents had intimidated them, manhandled officers of the court, insulted the judiciary, ransacked certain furniture of the court, removed certain items entrusted to the care of the court, and threatened them with harm. The magistrates enumerated a sequence of events, as follows: that Co-respondent Natt Roosevelt had stood as surety for a criminal defendant who had failed to appear in court at the time designated by the court; that Co-respondent Roosevelt was therefore arrested by the associate magistrate and ordered taken to jail until the defendant could be produced in court; and that the Co-respondent Mayor had thereupon ordered the release of Co-respondent Roosevelt from jail, offered derogatory remarks about the judiciary, manhandled the associate magistrate, and committed the other acts complained of by the associate magistrate.
The respondents denied the allegations, but the Court held that affidavits executed by a counsellor of the Supreme Court and a ministerial officer of the magistrate court corroborated the allegations of the magistrates. The Court ruled that although the acts were committed against the magistrates, they were of such magnitude that the Supreme Court could assume jurisdiction thereof and punish the contemnor therefor. The Court held that as a constitutional court it had the inherent constitutional power to hold in contempt persons who use force or commit acts of violence, torture, duress, and intimidation, with the intent, expressed or implied, to halt or stay the lower court proceedings or to unlawfully exercise judicial power, or intended to have the judicial officers reverse, modify, amend, or stay the execution of the court’s order and performance of the duties of a court. The Court further ruled that it had original jurisdiction over all acts of contempt which violate the constitutional principle of separation of power, which tend to undermine and render the authority and power of the Judicial Branch of government impotent and useless, and which jeopardize the existence and function of the democratic government. The Court observed that the acts of the respondents were intended to have those effects and therefore were contemptuous to the court. Accordingly, it held them in contempt, and ordered that they be imprisoned for six months in the common jail.
Joseph N Nagbe and Francis Y. S. Garlawolo appeared as Amici Curiae. Manston J Manley appeared for the respondents.
MADAM CHIEF JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court.
These contempt proceedings were held to determine whether the respondents herein are guilty of contempt of the Judiciary for physical assaults allegedly inflicted on the bodies and persons of the associate magistrate and other court staff and personnel, the ransacking of the Paynesville Magisterial Courtroom, and the total disruption of court proceedings therein. The facts and events leading to these proceedings are as follows:
The Chambers of the Chief Justice received the following communications:
“April 30, 2000
Her Honour Gloria M. Musu-Scott
Chief Justice of Liberia
Temple of Justice Building
Monrovia, Liberia
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR
1 have the honour to bring to your official attention the constant habit and obstruction of the Paynesville Magis-terial Court by the Mayor of Paynesville City, in person of Isaac Levi Flomo and his group, who physically attacked the court and court officers while the court was in session on Saturday, April 28, A. D. 2001, at about 10:00a.m.
On that Saturday morning, April 28, 2001, one of the employees of the City Corporation, in person of Natt Roosevelt, who stood for one defendant as surety before this court, was arrested to produce the said defendant before court. The defendant was released and turned over to him (surety) and ordered that he produces the defendant whenever needed for the hearing of the case. Upon several appeals, requests, and demands made to him to produce the defendant, he neglected, refused, and failed to produce the defendant, and at this juncture he was subsequently ordered arrested for violation of section 12.6 of the New Penal Code of Liberia by me as presiding magistrate. After his arrest for his failure to produce the defendant, he was ordered detained and was turned over to the sheriff for detention at the Monrovia Central Prison, pending the production of the principal defendant.
Your Honour, to our surprise, while the bailiff was leaving the bailiwick of the court with the surety, now defendant, the City Mayor and his group stopped, obstructed the function of the bailiff, and forcibly carried the defendant away, physically attacking the bailiff by the Mayor himself He did not stop there, but he again walked at the entrance of the court with his group and began to use blasphemous and abusive words on and against the entire Judicial Branch of Government as follows: “Your damned people just sitting on your asses in my building doing nothing. Your don’t know 1 am a Mayor of this City; 1 am an executive appointee and also the president of this City, and 1 will make sure to clear your from my building. If 1 say it, 1 mean it. Any person(s) from the court that touch any of my men, that is the time your asses will know who owns this Paynesville. Judiciary is under Executive and that is the small lesson 1 am showing your judicial people’
After making these remarks and satisfying his desire, he did not stop thus far, he (Mayor) again ordered his gangsters, headed by the same defendant (Natt Roosevelt), entered the courtroom and began to turn the court desks upside down, thereby scattering the court’s records and documents on some of the desks. Everybody in the courtroom had to run away, including the suspects (prisoners) that were placed on the bench. Most of the records on the sheriff’s desk were damaged and hearing of cases stopped for about an hour. Even some of the senior counsellors from the Supreme Court who were present had to leave; and even the handcuff that was on the defendant’s hand is still in his (Mayor) possession.
Your Honour, 1 am appealing to your good offices to cause the City Mayor of Paynesville, Mr. Isaac Levi Flomo, to appear before Your Honour with his group to show cause why he cannot be held to answer the charge of contempt.
Please find attached photos taken during the demon-stration of the Mayor and his group after destroying the court’s property.
Respectfully submitted,
Moses S. Tandanpoli
ASSOCIATE MAGISTRATE PRESIDING PAYNESVILLE MAGISTERIAL COURT”
One day later, on May 1, 2001, the Magistrate for the Paynesville Magisterial Court also wrote the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as follows:
“May 1, 2001
Her Honour
Gloria Musu-Scott
Chief Justice of Liberia
Temple of Justice Building
Monrovia, Liberia
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:
1 hasten to bring to your official and judicial attention the arbitrary and unlawful behaviour of the Mayor of the City of Paynesville, Honourable Isaac Levi Flomo, as follows:
1. That Mayor Isaac Flomo habitually interferes with judicial matters, of which 1 have warned him on many occasions and he has apologized and promised not to repeat, but continues to interfere with court matters.
2. That on Saturday, April 28, A. D. 2001, Associate Magistrate Moses S. Tandanpoli ordered the detention of one Natt Roosevelt who stood as surety for a defendant for his failure to produce the said defendant. While the bailiff was carrying the surety to jail, the Mayor and his City Hall staff ran after the bailiff and forcibly took away the defendant.
3. That thereafter, his men jumped the court’s staff and beat them and ransacked the courtroom. They threw the desks and tables in the courtroom upside down, thereby interrupting the entire court proceedings almost the whole day.
4. The Mayor also used some blasphemous remarks on and against the Judiciary, as follows: ‘YOUR BANDITS, YOUR DON’T KNOW THAT 1 AM PRESIDENT OF THIS CITY? YOUR DAMNED ASSES, IS THIS COURT YOU RUNNING HERE? 1 WILL MOVE ALL YOUR PEOPLE FROM HERE.’
Your Honour, the continuous interfering and ugly attitude of Mayor Isaac Flomo towards this Branch of Government is becoming unbearable; and pray that you kindly use your good offices to intervene to halt the ugly behaviour of the City Mayor.
Best regards,
Respectfully Yours,
Charles N. Howard, Sr.
STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE/PCC”
Again, on May 7, 2001, the Associate Magistrate wrote a letter to the Chief Justice, which we hereunder quote:
“May 7, 2001
Her Honour
Gloria Musu-Scott
Chief Justice of Liberia
Monrovia, Liberia
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:
1 hasten to once again inform you of the second attack being carried out by a person of the City Corporation of Paynesville, in person of Natt Roosevelt.
On Saturday May 5, 2001, and in the vicinity of the Paynesville Magisterial Court, Natt Roosevelt, who with the City Mayor attacked me and the court’s bailiffs and destroyed the court’s desks and documents on the 28th of April, A. D. 2001, again attacked me while 1 was going home after work on the said Saturday, May 5, 2001, at about 3:00 p. m.
As 1 earlier informed you in my first report concerning the Mayor and Natt Roosevelt, they stated clearly that they will make sure 1 leave from the Paynesville City Magisterial Court. 1 sent for a police to rescue me, and the said Natt Roosevelt was arrested and detained at the Zone 5 Police Sub-Station. To our utmost surprise, the same City Mayor of Paynesville, Isaac Levi Flomo, went to the Police Station and ordered the release of Natt Roosevelt; and he was released without delay.
Your Honour, my life is at stake, including the entire operation of the Paynesville City Magisterial Court, from the disturbances of the Paynesville City Corporation, and 1 request your good offices to quickly intervene before it gets too late as life is involved.
Kind regards
Respectfully yours,
Moses S. Tandanpoli
ASSOCIATE MAGISTRATE”
A writ of summons for contempt was issued by the Clerk of the Honourable Supreme Court against the respondents on the 7th day of May, A. D. 2001. The said writ of summons was duly served and returns thereto made by the Marshal of the Honourable Supreme Court.
At the call of this matter on May 9, 2001, the respondents appeared without representation by counsel. This Court there-fore ordered a postponement of the proceedings to allow the respondents to secure the services of a lawyer to represent them in the proceedings. The Court then appointed Counsel-lors Francis Y. S. Garlawolo and Joseph Nagbe as amici curiae. Thereafter, the respondents filed returns to the said writs of summons for contempt and therein basically denied the acts complained of in the letters signed by Stipendiary Magistrate Charles W. Howard and Associate Magistrate Moses S. Tandanpoli, respectively. We quote counts 4, 5 and 6 of the respondents returns hereunder:
“4. Co-respondent City Mayor submits that he has at no time interfered with the properties belonging to the court, not to say the least to order his staff to ransack the courtroom, spoil the desk or haul down the Liberian flag, which is the symbol of authority of this Republic, or have documents torn that belonged to the court. Respondents submit that this complaint is politically motivated. The fact of the matter is that the co-complainant, His Honour Moses Tandanpoli, has on many occasions appealed to Co-respondent City Mayor to use his influence, as Mayor of the Township of Paynesville and serving in the Executive Branch of Government, to have his Honour Charles W. Howard removed as Magistrate so that he could be appointed, and this fact has been related to His Honour Charles W. Howard.
5. That with regards to the respondent, Natt Roosevelt, who works with the City Corporation, Co-respondent City Mayor contends that he has at no time ordered the release of said Roosevelt or ordered his staff to fight the magisterial officers of the said court in an attempt to prevent said Natt Roosevelt from going to jail.”
6. That this allegation is frivolous and does not contain an iota of truth. The fact of the matter is that when the Co-respondent City Mayor heard the noise involving his employee, Natt Roosevelt, he attempted to find out what was happening because his staff was shouting for help. When the Co-respondent City Mayor heard that Co-respondent Natt was calling his name, Co-complainant Moses Tandanpoli made the remarks “to hell with the City Mayor, what can he do, because he cannot do anything. In fact, your carry the man…”
On the rescheduled date for the hearing of this matter, both oral and written arguments were advanced by the amici curiae and counsel for defendants. The first issue this Court must decide is:
1) Are contempt charges for physical assault on judicial officials and staff and the ransacking of a courtroom and the disruption of proceedings cognizable before the Supreme Court of Liberia?
This Court holds that disobedience to court orders and other acts of noncompliance and disrespect which are void of violence and do not render impotent the constitutional judicial authority, of not only the court and/or judicial officials so victimized, but the entire Judiciary, will continue to remain under the jurisdiction of subordinate courts. Accordingly, we confirm this Court’s opinion in the case In Re: The Constitutionality of Section 12.5 and 12.6 of the New Judiciary Law, approved May 10, 1972, reported in [1975] LRSC 3; 24 LLR 37 (1975). However, contemptuous acts that allege violence on the person and bodies of judicial officers and staff and also on the courtroom facilities, with the sole intent to prevent and render useless and impotent the capacity of the court and/or the judicial officers and staff to perform their duties and responsibilities under the Constitution and laws of this Republic, transcend contempt of a particular court and rise to the threshold of contempt of the Judiciary. Violence, force, torture, etc., used by a contenmor in the commission of contemptuous acts which instill fear and intimidation and which have the effect of paralyzing and rendering the court and judicial officials and staff unable to perform their duties, require the attention and protection of the Supreme Court of Liberia. By the use of force, violence, torture, and duress, with the intent, either expressed or implied, to halt or stay court proceedings in a matter, reverse, or obtain other actions or inaction from judicial officers, the contemnor assumes and exercises unlawful judicial power, authority, and control reserved by the Constitution and statute to the Judiciary.
Article 65 of the Constitution states:
“The Judicial Power of the Republic shall be vested in a Supreme Court and such subordinate courts as the Legislature may from time to time establish. The courts shall apply both statutory and customary laws in accordance with the standards enacted by the Legislature. Judgments of the Supreme Court shall be final and bind-ing and shall not be subject to appeal or review by any other branch of Government. Nothing in this article shall prohibit administrative consideration of a justiciable matter prior to review by a court of competent jurisdiction.” LIB. CONST., art. 65 (1986).
The Judiciary Law states:
“The judicial power of this Republic, except for tribal courts, whose organization and exclusive jurisdiction over tribal persons in tribal matters, as set forth in the Local Government Law, shall be embodied in a unified judicial system and shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in the following subordinate courts; a trial court of general jurisdiction, known as the Circuit Court; a trial court, whose original jurisdiction is limited to civil actions to obtain payment of a debt, known as the Debt Court; a trial court whose jurisdiction is limited to probate and related matters known as the Monthly and Probate Court; a trial court whose jurisdiction is limited to tax matters, known as the Tax Court; a trial court whose jurisdiction is limited to minor matters as set forth in this title, known as the Magistrate Court; another trial court whose jurisdiction is also limited to minor matters, as set forth in this title, known as the Justices of the Peace Court; a trial court whose jurisdiction is limited to cases involving violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, known as the Traffic Court; and a trial court whose jurisdiction is limited to special proceedings involving children under the age of eighteen years, known as the Juvenile Court.” Judiciary Law, Rev. Code 17:1.1.
This Court holds that contempt proceedings for allegations of contemptuous acts of violence, force, torture, duress and/or detention, committed by an alleged contemnor or persons acting under his/her control and direction, with the intention, either expressed or implied, to exercise judicial authority and control by instilling fear and intimidation to compel and coerce judicial officials and/or ministerial officers and judicial staff, to prevent, reverse, amend, modify and/or stay the execution of a court’s order and performance of the duties of a court, are cognizable before the Supreme Court of Liberia. The Supreme Court has the inherent constitutional duty to protect the sanctity and dignity of the judicial power and authority of the Judiciary.
This Court said in the case In re: Contempt Proceeding Against Honourable Prince Quaye Toe and Thomas K. Johnson, [1999] LRSC 45; 39 LLR 802 (1999), heard December 8, 1999 and decided December 17, 1999, the following:
“This Court is of the view and holds that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction over all alleged acts of contempt which violate the constitutional principle of separation of power and tend to undermine and render the authority and power of the Judicial Branch of Go-vernment impotent and useless, and thereby jeopardize the existence and function of a democratic government.
Therefore and wherefore, in view of the constitutional nature of the acts and conduct complained of and the grave consequences and implications to the effective administration of justice therefrom, we hold that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to hear and determine these contempt proceedings…”
We therefore answer the first issue in the affirmative and reiterate that contempt proceedings for physical assaults on judicial officials and/or court officers, and the ransacking of the courtroom, with the intent to exercise judicial control, are cognizable before the Supreme Court.
We shall now proceed with the second issue, which is, are the respondents guilty of contempt of the Judiciary? The Chief Justice received three correspondences, two from Associate Magistrate Moses Tandanpoli, dated April 30, 2001 and May 7, 2001, and one from Stipendiary Magistrate Charles W. Howard, dated May 1, 2001, alleging the violent and physical assault by the two co-respondents and persons acting under their control and direction, on the bodies and persons of Associate Magistrate Moses Tandanpoli and the ministerial officer of the Paynesville Magisterial Court. These corre-spondences also alleged that the two co-respondents, along with other persons under the co-respondents’ control and direction, ransacked the courtroom by overturning desks, tables, and chairs, destroying court records, and disrupting and bringing to a complete halt the proceedings of the court.
This Court was also informed that Co-respondent Levi Flomo interfered with the operations of the Paynesville Magisterial Court and exercised control over properties brought under the control and jurisdiction of the court by the appropriate court precepts.
The respondents filed returns denying the allegations made by the Magistrate and Associate Magistrate of the Paynesville Magisterial Court. In count 4 of the respondents’ returns, an interesting denial was brought to the attention of this Court. Co-respondent Levi Flomo told this Court that he had never ordered his staff to “.. . ransack the courtroom, spoil the desk, or haul down the Liberian flag which was the symbol of authority of this Republic…” The question is, was the flag of the Republic of Liberia hauled down from its place of elevation, authority, and display in the courtroom? If the ans-wer is yes, then the next question is, who violently removed the flag from the location where it hung in the courtroom, and intentionally, wilfully, and with callous disregard and force, threw it to the floor?
This Court confirms that the Liberian Flag is the symbol of authority of this Republic. The Liberian Flag is also a symbol of the Constitution and people of this Republic. The Liberian Flag represents the Nation, Liberia. The act of violently, mali-ciously, recklessly, and intentionally removing or bringing it down from its place of honor, elevation, dignity, respect, authority, and/or safekeeping, and to proceed to throw it to the ground or treat it with utter disrespect and dishonor, is evidence of the actor’s utter disdain, disrespect, and disgust for the Constitution and authority of the Republic of Liberia. But let us revert to the basic question of whether or not the Liberian Flag was hauled to the ground, and if yes, who hauled the Flag to the ground? As stated earlier, the issue of the hauling of the Liberian Flag to the ground was brought to this Court’s attention by Co-respondent Levi Flomo when denying and defending himself against the complaints of the stipendiary magistrate and his associate. The stipendiary magistrate and his associate did not inform this Court that Co-respondent Levi Flomo hauled the flag of this Republic to the ground. The sworn affidavits of Ministerial Officer Thomas 1. Gbeyan, and Counsellor Beyan Howard, hereunder quoted verbatim, respectively, did not swear to the fact that Co-respondent Levi Flomo had hauled the Liberian Flag to the ground. The affidavit of Thomas 1. Gbeyan states:
REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA ) IN THE OFFICE OF THE JUSTICE OF THE MONTSERRADO COUNTY) PEACE MONTSERRADO COUNTY, R.L,
IN RE: ISAAC FLOMO ET AL. CONTEMPT PROCEEDING
AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS T. GBEYAN MINISTERIAL OFFICER OF THE PAYNESVILLE MAGISTERIAL COURT.
Personally appeared before me, a duly qualified Justice of the Peace in and for the County of Montserrado, Repu-blic of Liberia, Thomas T. Gbeyan, Ministerial Officer of the Magisterial Court of Paynesville, and made oath thus:
1. That he is the Ministerial Officer of the Paynesville Magisterial Court.
2. That he was present in court on the 20th day of March, A. D. 2001 when the City Mayor of Paynesville, respondent herein, forcibly broke the lock of the warehouse of the Paynesville Magisterial Court and took therefrom sundry properties seized under execu-tions in several judicial matters, as will appear from a photo copy of the list of said properties seized and taken away by the City Mayor, marked exhibit “A” hereof.
3. That the said Respondent City Mayor personally distributed said properties among individuals, some of whom were not owners thereof, as will appear from photocopy of a receipt duly issued and acknowledged by him and marked exhibit “B” hereof.
4. That he was also physically present in court on April 28, A. D. 2001, when Co-respondent Natt Roosevelt was served with court precept to produce the living body of a defendant whom he became surety for, and having failed to produce the defendant he was ordered detained by Associate Magistrate Tandanpoli, upon a commitment duly issued and placed in my hands for enforcement, which 1 instructed Constable Vesselee to execute, as will evidentially appear from court’s precepts marked in bulk exhibit “C” hereof
5. That he was present when the Co-respondent City Mayor ordered personnel of his office to violently release Co-respondent Natt Roosevelt, by which orders the said Natt Roosevelt was violently released from the constable who had carried him a few yards from the bailiff of court and taken to the office of the City Mayor.
6. That a few minutes following the violent release of Natt Roosevelt from custody of the constable, 1 saw the City Mayor along with several personnel of his office, including Natt Roosevelt, forcibly entering the court room and assaulting Associate Magistrate Tandanpoli and Constable Vesselee, and turning the desks and other properties of the court upside down and at the same time abusing the magistrate and officers of court. Further, such acts obstructed the proceedings of court on the 28th day of April, A. D. 2001.
7. That he was present when the City Mayor, again on the 28th day of April, ordered Magistrate Howard, Stipen-diary Magistrate of Paynesville, to remove the remain-ing properties of court from the storeroom assigned to the court; after which, said City Mayor physically evicted the magistrate by removing the court’s properties from the storeroom and subsequently taking same into his custody, exclusive of the ministerial officer of court, as will appear from photocopy of letter addressed to the magistrate on the same date and day, and marked exhibit “D” hereof;
And that every and singular the allegations of facts as are contained herein, and as to those matters of information received, he verily believes same to be true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief
SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED TO BEFORE ME THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY, A. D, 2001
Justice of the Peace, Montserrado County.
Thomas T. Gbeyan
MINISTERIAL OFFICER
DEPONENT
$3.00 Revenue Stamp Affixed hereto.
The affidavit of Counsellor Beyan Howard reads as follows:
“REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA ) IN THE OFFICE OF THE JUS-
MONTSERRADO COUNTY) TICE OF THE PEACE FOR
MONTSERRADO COUNTY, R.L.
IN RE: ISAAC LEVI FLOMO ET AL.
CONTEMPT PROCEEDING
AFFIDAVIT OF AFFIRMATION OF FACT BY
COUNSELLOR BEYAN HOWARD
Personally appeared before me, a duly qualified Justice of the Peace in and for the County of Montserrado and Republic aforesaid, Counselor Beyan Howard, a practi-cing lawyer of the Honourable Supreme Court of Liberia, and made oath according to law thus:
1. That he is a practicing lawyer of the Republic of Liberia and a member of the Supreme Court Bar, by which he is under oath to testify to the truth of any matter within the certainty of his knowledge and belief;
2. That on April 28, A. D. 2001, he had gone to the Paynesville Magistrate to represent his client when his case could not be called and heard because of a confusion caused by the City Mayor of Paynesville and one of his staff members, Natt Roosevelt.
3. That to the best of his recollection, he saw the City Mayor and his personnel physically assaulting Asso-ciate Magistrate Moses Tandanpolie and his con-stable and thereafter ransacking the entire courtroom, which made it impossible for the court to hold session on April 28, 2001.
And that every and singular the allegations of fact as are contained herein, and as to those matters of information received, he verily believes same to be true and correct.
SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED TO
BEFORE ME THIS 11TH DAY OF
MAY, A. D. 2001
Justice of the Peace, Montserrado Co.
Beyan Howard
COUNSELLOR-AT-LAW
DEPONENT
$3.00 Revenue stamp affixed hereto.”
As stated earlier, the grave act of hauling the Liberian Flag to the ground is not contained in the sworn affidavits quoted above. Hence, should this Court proceed to answer the questions of whether the Liberian Flag was hauled to the ground and if yes who committed the act? The only evidence available would be circumstantial evidence. Will it be appropriate for this Court to conjecture and infer from the co-respondent’s denial of this act in the face of two complaints and two sworn affidavits which are void of the commission of this grave and egregious act? This Court thinks not. Indeed, because of the gravity and egregiousness of this act, we believe the stipendiary magistrate, the associate magistrate, the ministerial officer and/or the counsellor of the Supreme Court Bar would have taken note thereof and included this act in their respective complaints and sworn affidavits. We there-fore do not believe that the issue warrants our disposition. Hence, we shall revert to the issue of who ransacked the courtroom and disrupted court proceedings? We must also answer another question which begs an answer. After Co-respondent Natt Roosevelt was placed in the custody of the ministerial officer to be taken to the common jail, who ordered his release? To answer these questions we need to determine whether the associate magistrate and the ministerial officer were assaulted and prevented from performing their judicial functions, duties, and responsibilities?
The records before this Court revealed that the respondents and the judicial officials, that is, Stipendiary Magistrate Charles Howard, Associate Magistrate Tandanpoli, the mini-sterial officer, and Counsellor Beyan Howard, all concurred that Co-respondent Natt Roosevelt was ordered arrested and placed under the custody of the ministerial officer to be detained in the common jail until he could produce the living body of Samuel Jallah, whom it was said was released pursuant to law to the recognizance of Co-respondent Natt Roosevelt. The records further revealed that the failure of Co-respondent Natt Roosevelt to present the said Samuel Jallah, as ordered by the court, necessitated the arrest of the said co-respondent, Natt Roosevelt.
Co-respondent Isaac Levi Flomo, in his returns, contended that upon Co-respondent Natt Roosevelt, a member of the Mayor’s staff, being carried to jail, the said Natt Roosevelt began to shout Co-respondent Flomo’s name in order to be rescued. This was a clear admission that Co-defendant Natt Roosevelt was arrested and was being carried to jail. The question is who ordered his release? We note from the records that the sworn affidavits, quoted above, corroborate the allegations of the stipendiary magistrate and the associate magistrate, Moses Tandanpoli, that Co-respondent Isaac Levi Flomo, along with persons acting under his orders, violently and forcibly released Co-respondent Natt Roosevelt from the custody of the ministerial officer. Co-respondent Natt Roosevelt remains at liberty even up to today’s date, without any court order ordering his release. The two sworn affidavit further corroborate that the two respondents herein, with force and violence, entered the courtroom of the Paynesville Magisterial Court, disrupted the court proceedings, overturned the chairs, tables, and desks, destroyed court documents, and halted all court proceedings for a period of time on April 28, 2001.
Lastly, the two sworn affidavits, especially that of Counsellor Beyan D. Howard, corroborated the allegations of Associate Magistrate Moses Tandanpoli that he and the ministerial officers of the court were physically assaulted by the respondents and other persons acting under the orders and influence of Co-respondent Isaac Levi Flomo.
During the hearing of these contempt proceedings, Co-respondent Levi Flomo admitted and conceded that the following receipt was issued by him for properties that were under the custody of the court, under duly issued court precepts. We herewith quote the receipt:
“RECEIPT
Received from the Mayor’s office one(l) family-size bed with one (l) family size mattress.
Sign: Signature unintelligible
Signed: Signature unintelligible
A. Nathaniel Dixon. DAI3/01”
Clearly from the said receipt, admitted to by Co-respondent Isaac Levi Flomo, it is evident that he illegally interfered with and unlawfully made a determination of matters pending before the Paynesville Magisterial Court. This Court is convinced that the respondents herein, by force and violence, physically assaulted Associate Magistrate Moses Tandanpoli and a ministerial officer, ransacked the Paynesville Magisterial Court, brought the proceedings therein to a complete halt, and interfered in the court’s proceedings, including distributing properties which were in the court’s custody under court precepts; and further, that they also, with force and violence, along with persons acting under his command and influence, did release Co-respondent Natt Roosevelt from the custody of the ministerial officer.
By the foregoing acts the respondents, by force and violence, did instill fear and intimidation in a judicial official and staff who then submitted to the respondents’ unauthorized exercise of judicial authority, normally reserved to an appellate court, with the intent of interfering in an action pending in the magisterial court. By the said actions the respondents were effectively reversing the order fo the magisterial court and bringing any further proceedings in the said matter to a complete halt, thereby violating the constitutional mandate of the Judiciary.
This Court also finds that by the foregoing acts, the respondents have manifested their complete disregard for the sanctity, authority, and dignity of the Judiciary and its judicial officials and staff and, more importantly, the constitutional mandate of this Judicial Branch of Government. Wherefore, this Court conclusively adjudges Co-respondents Isaac Levi Flomo and Natt Roosevelt guilty of contempt of the Judiciary.
This now brings us to the penalty for the acts enumerated hereinabove, which have been determined by this Court as contempt of the Judiciary. In 1975, this Court said of the determination of the Supreme Court’s authority to determine and punish contempt, as follows:
“…this Court in In re John Moore[1913] LRSC 5; , 2 LLR 97, 98 (1913), held clearly and unequivocally that this power cannot be limited by statute. First, the Court pointed out “that there is a radical difference between a constitution-al court and a statutory court…. This Court is established by direct constitutional provision and the legislature is limited in its right to make laws concerning it…. The power to punish for contempt as well as to determine whether a contempt has been committed is inherent in all constitutional courts, and cannot be limited by statute. In re The Constitutionality of Sections 12.5 and 12.6 of The Judiciary Law, approved May 10[1975] LRSC 3; , 1972, 24 LLR 37 (1975), text at 54 & 55.
Further, in a decision handed down at the close of the October, A. D. 1999 Term of this Court in the case In re Contempt Proceedings against Honorable Prince Quaye, this Court meted out a sentence of one-year imprisonment. The contemptuous act of Honorable Prince Quaye Toe et al., in addition to the use of force, violence, and physical assault on the body and person of a judicial official, was the arrest, torture, and detention employed by Co-respondents Quaye et al., as a result of which the judicial official suffered injuries to his body and also suffered violations of his fundamental rights and human dignity. However in these contempt proceedings, the elements of arrest, detention, torture, and injuries to the bodies and persons of the court officials are absent from the force, violence, and physical assault inflicted on them by the respondents’ illegal and unauthorized exercise of constitutional and statutory judicial authority.
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing facts and circum-stances, and the law controlling, this Court adjudges Co-respondents Isaac Levi Flomo and Natt Roosevelt guilty of contempt of the Judiciary and hereby sentence them to a period of six (6) consecutive calendar months of imprisonment, commencing from the date of this opinion. Additionally, the respondents shall replace all court furniture damaged by their illegal ransacking of the courtroom and shall publish a letter in each newspaper in this Republic declaring that their illegal and contemptuous acts will not be repeated. On or before the end of their first seven (7) days of imprisonment, Co-respondent Isaac Levi Flomo should also replace and/or restitute all properties which had been placed in the court’s custody and possession, but which were illegally interfered with and distributed by the said Co-respondent Flomo. The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to issue a commitment and place same in the hands of the Marshal and therein order the Marshal of the Supreme Court to commit Respondents Levi Flomo and Natt Roosevelt to the common jail for a period of six (6) months, commencing from the date of this opinion. Costs are disallowed. And it is hereby so ordered.
Respondents adjudged guilty of contempt.