IN RE: CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HONOURABLE J. LAVELI SUPUWOOD, MINISTER OF JUSTICE, R. L.
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.
Heard: December 14, 1994. Decided: February 17, 1995.
1. Whenever they are present within the circuit, the circuit judge assigned to a circuit court, during his assignment and the pre-trial chamber session prior thereto, concurrently with the resident judge thereof, shall have authority to act on all matters coming before the court.
2. If both the assigned circuit judge and the resident judge are unavailable, then the judge of the circuit court adjoining the circuit where the action is triable shall have authority to act, except for motions which may be made during and after a trial or any motion for an order that would dispose of the action, in whole or in part, or in any manner other than the settlement of an action or claim involving an infant or judicially declared incompetent. Judiciary Law, Rev. Code 17:3.10.
3. No judicial official shall be arrested or detained by or at the instance of any person or authority on account of judicial acts done in the course of a trial in open court or in chambers.
4. An action which is directed against the power and dignity of the court constitutes criminal contempt.
5. An arrest or an attempt to arrest a judge by any person or authority on account of judicial acts done by him pursuant to his judicial functions is contemptuous.
These contempt proceedings stem from a letter dated December 10, 1994, addressed to His Honour James G. Bull, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Liberia by Counsellor J. Laveli Supuwood, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, R. L., in which he informed the Chief Justice that he has decided to arrest Judge Micah Wright, resident Judge of the Civil Law Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, for approving an injunction bond and temporary restraining order on ITC prohibiting and enjoining it from paying any of its funds to LNTG. According to his letter, the action of Judge Wright constitutes economic and security sabotage against the Government and people of Liberia which, if left unchecked, would bring chaos and confusion in our society.
A writ of summons for contempt proceeding was therefore issued against Minister J. Laveli Supuwood for contempt. The Minister filed a one count returns. When the contempt proceeding was called, the Minister appeared pro se. The Supreme Court concluded that the Minister’s act and his performance during the contempt proceedings, demonstrated gross disrespect to the court and its Justices and that he defied the authority of the court.
As to the question of whether Judge Wright, committed any crime when he signed the injunction bond during the assignment of his colleague, the Supreme Court held that, Judge Wright as resident judge, had concurrent jurisdiction with the assigned circuit judge and therefore had legal power and authority to sign the bond. With respect to the decision of the Minister to arrest Judge Wright for approving the injunction bond, the court held that under our constitution, no judicial official shall be arrested or detained by or at the instance of any person or authority on account of judicial acts done in the course of a trial in open court or in chambers, and that the decision by the Minister to arrest the judge was contemptuous. Accordingly, the Supreme Court adjudged Minister Supuwood guilty of criminal contempt and fined him the sum of Ten Thousand (L$10,000.00) Liberian dollars.
Joseph P. H. Findley appeared as an Amicus Curiae for the Republic of Liberia. .1 Laveli Supuwood, Minister of Justice and Attorney General/R.L. appeared pro se.
MR. JUSTICE MORRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This contempt proceeding stems from a letter dated December 10, 1994, addressed to His Honour James G. Bull, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Liberia by Counselor J. Laveli Supuwood, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, R.L. The contents of the letter show that His Honour Judge M. Wilkins Wright, Resident Judge of the Civil Law Court, signed an injunction bail bond in the case Concerned Women of Liberia, Inc., by and thru its President, Vulate Tate, v. LNTG et. al. while Judge Varney D. Cooper was the Assigned Circuit Court Judge for the September Term, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Civil Law Court. According to his letter, the action of Judge Wright constitutes economic and security sabotage against the Government and people of Liberia which, if left unchecked, would bring chaos and confusion in our society.
A writ of summons for contempt proceeding was therefore issued against Minister J. Laveli Supuwood for the arrest and detention of Judge M. Wilkins Wright. A one count returns was signed and filed by Counselors David Gbala and Peter A. Gbelia, Deputy Ministers of Justice, on behalf of the Minister. We quote both the Minister’s letter and the one count returns filed by his Deputy Ministers on his behalf.
“REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA MINISTRY OF JUSTICE MONROVIA, LIBERIA
December 10, 1994 M/MJ/LNTG/121P94/R.L. His Honour James Bull Chief Justice Supreme Court of Liberia Monrovia, Liberia May It Please Your Honour:
Your Honour, we regret to inform you that on December 7, 1994, His Honour Judge Micah Wright signed an Injunction Bond in the case: CONCERNED WOMEN OF LIBERIA, INC., through its President, Vulate Tate, Plaintiff versus the LNTG et al. Based upon his approval of the bond, a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER was issued and served on the LNTG, prohibiting and enjoining ITC from paying any of the Maritime funds to the LNTG.
Your Honour, as you are aware that His Honour Judge Wright was not clothed with the authority to sign the said Bond because Judge Varney Cooper was assigned and presiding on December 7, 1994 in the Civil Law Court.
Please find hereto attached, copy of a clerk certificate substantiating this fact.
Your Honour, you will no doubt agree with me that his action constitutes an economic and security sabotage against the government and people of Liberia, which if left unchecked, would bring chaos and confusion in our society. We therefore have no other alternative but to arrest Judge Micah Wright.
Respectfully yours, s/J. Laveli Supuwood t/.1. Laveli Supuwood
MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL/R.L CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS: RESPONDENT’S RETURNS
“Respondent in the above entitled cause, prays his Honourable Court to purge him of contempt charges for the following reasons to wit:
1. That contrary to the allegation contained in the writ of summons, he, at no time, did arrest and detain His Honour M. Wilkins Wright, Resident Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit for Montserrado County.
WHEREFORE, respondent prays this Honourable Court to purge him of all contempt charges and accord him such further remedies as this Honourable Court may deem just and equitable.”
However, when the Minister appeared for the contempt proceedings, he assumed a different attitude to questions put to him by the Bench. We shall quote few of these questions and their answers for the benefit of this opinion.
QUES. The Chief Justice would like to know, based upon your letter written to him as a Chief Justice, whether you attempted to arrest Judge Wright, Resident Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit for Montserrado County, and whether the letter dated December 10, 1994, was written to him based upon such intention?
ANS. Mr. Chief Justice, I wish to inform you, even though your question is not relevant to the issue at bar, that I am here to defend myself based upon your writ of summons for contempt which indicates that I have arrested Judge M. Wilkins Wright, which I never did. In the meantime, Judge Wright is present in court for Your Honours to ascertain from him whether he was arrested by me; and because I have never arrested him, said contempt proceedings is vague and immaterial. I therefore pray Your Honours to purge me of the aforesaid contempt.
QUES. From your argument before us, we are of the conclusion that you did actually arrest Judge M. Wilkins Wright of the Civil Law Court based upon your letter addressed to the Chief Justice, dated December 10, 1994, but that you are now telling this Bench that you have not effected any arrest against the said Judge. This Court would like to know as to whether you are in knowledge of the fact that Judge Wright is the Resident Circuit Judge of the Civil Law Court, and that he is clothed with all authority to proceed into any matter affecting the Civil Law Court either during term time or out of term-time of the Civil Law Court?
ANS. In answering to this question put to Minister Supuwood by Justice Smallwood, the Minister said in essence that the bar is not connected with the writ of summons for contempt, based upon the arrest of Judge M. Wilkins Wright. The Minister of Justice went further to explain that if at all Judge Wright is a Resident Judge for the Sixth Judicial Circuit for Montserrado county, Republic of Liberia, and considering the fact that he is not presently residing within this term-time but rather Judge Varnie Cooper, he had no authority to grant any bail bond touching an injunction issue which may be in the Civil Law Court during this particular term-time. Further, that the Ministry of Justice is clothed with the police power to arrest all criminals within the Republic of Liberia either on complaint or without any complaint so as to bring justice where it belongs.
QUES. From an answer given to a question put to you by my colleague, you said that Judge M. Wilkins Wright, even though as a Resident Judge of the Civil Law Court, but that because he is not assigned therein during this term time, he is prohibited to carry on any function affecting the Civil Law Court as the case at bar. If he does so, do you have the police power to arrest him?
ANS. In answering to this question of Justice Smith, Minister Supuwood said that he never expected these questions posted to him by the Bench, for reason that contrary to the allegation contained in the Writ of Summons, he at no time arrested and detained His Honour M. Wilkins Wright, Resident Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit for Montserrado County, R.L. Therefore, he wishes to say that the members of the Supreme Court are expected to be of caliber of higher trust and confidence to carry on the interest of citizens in the execution of its judicial duties, so as to bring a good name to our judicial system within the Republic of Liberia, but not to tarnish its integrity by asking unreasonable questions which are contrary to the allegation contained in the writ of summons, indicating that the Minister of Justice arrested His Honour M. Wilkins Wright, which is false and misleading as the subject of these contempt proceedings.
QUES. According to your argument before us, you are telling us that your letter written to the Chief Justice is merely intended to seek his advise on the issue involving the arrest of Judge Wright. If this is true, this court would like to know the authority given to you by the Constitution or law, as an Executive Officer of the Executive Branch of Government, Minister of Justice, to seek the advice and consent of the Chief Justice, before affecting the arrest of all judges or citizens as in the nature of this case?
ANS. In answering to the question of the Chief Justice, Minister Supuwood said that he did not find himself within the confines of the writ of summons issued against him for the arrest of Judge M. Wilkins Wright. As to the executive power, the Ministry of Justice is empowered to arrest all criminals without any other authority but by right based upon his police power which the Minister is granted to arrest all criminals. Therefore, Judge Wright is not exempted from any arrest when he commits a criminal act, and based upon our letter addressed to you, we only intended to get your advice before the arrest of Judge Wright.
QUES. If your answer to the last question is correct, why then were you compelled to have written this particular letter to the Chief Justice?
ANS. In answering to this question of the Bench, Minister Supuwood said that the question was unreasonable and did not conform itself to the alternative writ of summons for contempt as a subject of the arrest of Judge Wright when said arrest has not been effected by the Ministry of Justice.
QUES. Did you attempt to arrest Judge M. Wilkins Wright? The Bench advanced this question to Minister Supuwood.
ANS. I am not here to show intention and/or intent but to defend myself against the fact alleged in the writ of summons for contempt, and I must say that the Judge was not arrested but the intention was declared. Minister Supuwood then declared that the issue before the Court en bane was contrary and illegal; that is, that Judge Wright was arrested.
QUES. In your letter, you mentioned that Judge Wright should not have tempered with the function of the court because he is not presently presiding, are you saying then that he has committed a crime when he approved the injunction bond?
ANS. In replying to the question of the Bench en bane, Minister Supuwood said that the issue before the Bench was the illegal arrest of Judge of Judge M. Wilkins Wright, and that should be treated, and that he was not at liberty to answer to question that were not pertaining to that issue. He said further that the question had nothing to do with whether or not Judge Wright was arrested.
He also expressed that the reconstitution of the Supreme Court of Liberia was carried out during the Cotonou Accord immediately after the 1990 cease fire, through his instrumentality and members of a committee, including Charles Taylor, Amos Sawyer and other dignitaries, with the sense of responsibility and confidence to be reposed in the members of the Judiciary in carrying out their active administration of transparent justice. However, he expressed surprise to note that transparent justice is not meted out to party litigants who come before the Supreme Court for redress. Minister Supuwood said that he was one of the members who advocated for the Judiciary with the hope that it would carry out justice to its people, but he regretted to note that the Supreme Court is doing otherwise than that expected of it and/or it is trying to go into issue not brought before it in these contempt proceedings. The question is, did Judge Wright commit any crime under our law as Resident Circuit Judge, Civil Law Court where his colleague, Judge Varnie Cooper was presiding, when he signed the injunction bail bond during the assignment of his colleague? To answer this question we quote Section 3.10 of the New Judiciary Law which provides that: “The Circuit Court of the several judicial circuits shall be considered always open for adjudication of matters over which they have jurisdiction and for the purpose of filing any pleadings or other paper authorized by rule or statute, of issuing and returning means and final process and of making and directing all interlocutory motions, orders and rules. Whenever they are present within the circuit, the circuit judge assigned to a circuit court, during his assignment and the pre-trial chamber session prior thereto, concurrently with the resident judge thereof, shall have authority to act on all matters coming before the court; and if neither is available, then, except for the trial of an action and any motions in connection therewith which may be made during and after such trial or any motion for an order that would dispose of the action, in whole or in part, in any manner other than the settlement of an action or claim involving an infant or judicially declared incompetent, all other matters may be heard by the presiding judge of the Circuit Court adjoining the circuit where the action is triable.” Judiciary Law, Rev. Code 17:3.10, Circuit court open for judicial business at all time; availability of circuit judges. With reference to Judge M. Wilkins Wright being arrested for approving a bail bond, we also quote the relevant portion of the constitution which provides that:
“No judicial official shall be summoned, arrested detained, prosecuted or tried civilly or criminally by or at the instance of any person or authority on account of judicial opinions rendered or expressed, judicial statements made and judicial acts done in the course of a trial in open court or in chambers, except for treason or other felonies, misdemeanor or breach of the peace. Statements made and acts done by such officials in the course of a judicial proceeding shall be privileged, and, subject to the above qualification, no such statements made or acts done shall be admissible into evidence against them at any trial or proceeding.” LIB. CONST., Art. 73. In this case, the jury session of the September Term commenced on the 19 th of September, 1994 and by December 7, 1994 the 42 days jury session had expired and Judge Varney Cooper may have been in chambers; if at all he was still there. Therefore, Judge M. Wilkins Wright according to the laws cited had all legal power and authority to act concurrently with the assigned judge.
As we have said earlier, the Minister of Justice would have craved our sympathy more had he kept within the confines of his one count returns. This he did not do. An action which is directed against the power and dignity of the court constitutes criminal contempt as in the instant case. 17 AM JUR 2d., Contempt, § 4.
The respondent having appeared before court and proceeded to impugn the dignity of the court, we have no other alternative but to hold him in criminal contempt. Therefore, he is hereby adjudged guilty of criminal contempt and fined in the sum of Ten Thousand (L$10,000.00) Liberian Dollars to be paid within 48 hours and exhibit the flag receipt covering the payment to the Marshal of this Court. And it is hereby so ordered.
Respondent adjudged guilty of contempt.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BULL dissents.
I am constrained to dissent from the majority opinion just delivered by our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Morris, for reasons which I state below.
During this period of our nation’s history, more than ever before, we must demonstrate serious concerns for the continuing deterioration of those essential values which have sustained the body politic for the past 148 years of the existence of Republic of Liberia. These values, among others, include love for our country and its people, deference for parents and elders in our society, obedience to the laws of our State, upholding the dignity of our cherished institutions, and the scrupulous exercise of respect for constituted authority. Therefore, unless we begin now to abandon our neglect of these important values, we shall continue to suffer from the civil strife which has caused the people of this nation the loss of thousands of valuable lives and millions of dollars worth of public and private properties.
On Saturday, December 10, 1994, at about 5 O’clock p.m., I was handed a letter from the Ministry of Justice at my Mamba Point residence, addressed to me. as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Liberia. I shall quote this letter below:
“REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA MINISTRY OF JUSTICE MONROVIA, LIBERIA M/MJ/LNTG/121/’94/R.L. December 10, 1994 His Honour James Bull Chief Justice Supreme Court of Liberia Monrovia, Liberia May It Please Your Honour: Your Honour, we regret to inform you that on December 7, 1994, His Honour Judge Micah Wright signed an injunction bond in the case: CONCERN WOMEN OF LIBERIA, INC., through its President, Vulate Tate, Plaintiff Versus the LNTG et. al. Based upon his approval of the bond, a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER was issued and served on the LNTG, prohibiting and enjoining ITC from paying any of the Maritime funds to the LNTG. Your Honour, as you are aware that His Honour Judge Wright was not clothed with the authority to sign the said Bond because Judge Varney Cooper was assigned and presiding on December 7, 1994 in the Civil Law Court. Please find hereto attached, copy of a clerk’s certificate substantiating this fact. Your Honour, you will no doubt agree with me. that his action constitutes an economic and security sabotage against the government and people of Liberia, which if left unchecked, would bring chaos and confusion in our society. We therefore have no other alternative but to arrest Judge Micah Wright. Respectfully yours, s/J. Laveli Supuwood Laveli Supuwood MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL/RL
After reading the contents of this letter, I became stunned and surprised. I immediately telephoned the Chairman of the Council of State, His excellency Counselor-At-Law David Kpomakpor and read the letter to him over the telephone. Chairman Kpomakpor also expressed surprise and assured me that he had no knowledge of Justice Minister Supuwood’s action stated in his letter to me. However, Chairman Kpomakpor said to me that he was going to contact his colleague, Councilman Counselor-At-Law Philip A. Z. Banks, III, the Councilman responsible for national security of this country and, that following his contact with Councilman Banks, he would get back to your humble servant. On the following Monday, December 12, 1994, I and the other Justices of the Supreme Court met in my chambers where we discussed Minister Supuwood’s letter with objectivity. It was then that we unanimously agreed that Minister Supuwood’s action as described in his said letter was an affront to the dignity, authority and independence of the judiciary branch of our government; hence, we decided to cite the Minister of Justice, and Dean of the Supreme Court of Liberia Bar to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court.
Before citing the Minister for contempt, we wrote the following letter to the Chairman and Members of the Council of State of the Liberia National Transitional Government (LNTG). I quote:
“JUDICIAL BRANCH CHIEF JUSTICE
SUPREME COURT OF LIBERIA TEMPLE OF JUSTICE
MONROVIA, LIBERIA
204/CJ-3/r 94 December 13, 1994
The Chairman & Members of the Council
of State, Liberia National Transitional
Government, Executive Mansion
Monrovia, Liberia
Your Excellencies:
We have the honour to submit to you, the enclosed copy of a letter, addressed to us, by the Honourable J. Laveli Supuwood, Minister of Justice, which is selfexplanatory.
Upon consultation with my colleagues of the Supreme Court Bench, we agree that the action taken by Minister of Justice against His Honour Judge Micah Wright, Resident Circuit Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, Montserrado County, violates the Laws and Constitution of Liberia. Additionally, the Minister’s action contravenes the spirit and intent of the Constitution in regards to the coordinate and cooperative dealings of the several Branches of our Government.
Further, we regard the Minister’s letter as an affront to the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice, especially that portion of the Minister’s letter which implies that the Chief Justice is aware, “that His Honour Judge Micah Wright was not clothed with the authority to sign the said bond…” and that the Chief Justice “will no doubt agree with me that his action (meaning Judge Wright’s action), constitutes an economic and security sabotage against the people of Liberia….”. These acts and evident by his aforesaid letter, are considered gross disrespect to the Chief Justice and the Judicial Branch as a whole.
In view of the above, we wish to inform your Excellencies that the Minister of Justice and Dean of the supreme Court Bar will be cited to appear before the Supreme Court en bane to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for the above acts which are unbecoming of a member of the Supreme Court Bar.
Kind regards. Sincerely, a/James G. Bull t/James G. Bull CHIEF JUSTICE
Encl. A/S”
Our endeavours mentioned above, that is to say, (a)
telephoning the Chairman of the Council of State to apprize him of the contents of Minister Supuwood’s action and letter, and (b) addressing the above quoted letter to the Chairman and Members of the Council of State, was a clear demonstration that we in the Judiciary recognize that even though the three branches of government created under Chapter I of our Constitution, are separate, equal and coordinate branches, yet they should function harmoniously. We regret to say, however, that we were not favoured with a response from the Executive Branch which includes the Chairman and Members of the Council of State. We must therefore consider their silence as a condonation of the acts of their appointed Minister of Justice. We deem it important to mention here that both the chairman of the Council of State and Councilman Philip Banks, III, who are responsible for the security of the state are members of the Supreme Court Bar. Additionally, Chairman Kpomakpor is a former member of this court and Councilman Banks is a former Attorney General and Dean of the Supreme Court Bar.
Accordingly, Mr. Supuwood was summoned to appear before the Supreme court to answer the charge of contempt on Wednesday, December 14, 1994, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. For purposes of this dissent, we deem it expedient to quote below the writ of summons for contempt:
“IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA OCTOBER TERM, A. D. 1994 PRESENT: HIS HONOUR JAMES G BULL, CHIEF JUSTICE ” HIS HONOUR E. WINFRED SMALLWOOD, ASS. JUSTICE ” HIS HONOUR BOIMA K. MORRIS, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ” HIS HONOUR VICTOR D. FINE, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ” HIS HONOUR FRANK W. SMITH ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
WRIT OF SUMMONS FOR CONTEMPT REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA TO BRIG. GENERAL AMOS B. K. DICKSON, SR. MARSHALL OR HIS DEPUTY, SUPREME COURT REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO SUMMONS FOR CONTEMPT THE BODY OF J. LAVELI SUPU-WOOD, MINISTER OF JUSTICE, R.L. AND CAUSE HIM TO APPEAR BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
SUPREME COURT OF LIBERIA ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1994, AT THE HOUR OF NINE O’CLOCK IN THE MORNING, TO SHOW CAUSE, IF ANY, WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT FOR ARRESTING HIS HONOUR M. WILKINS WRIGHT, RESIDENT JUDGE OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF MONT. COUNTY, REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA, AS CONTAINED IN HIS LETTER (REF. NO. M/MJ/LNTG/121/’94/RL), DATED DECEMBER 10, 1994 AND ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIS HONOUR JAMES G. BULL.
YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED TO MAKE YOUR OFFICIAL REPORTS TO THIS WRIT OF SUMMONS FOR CONTEMPT ON OR BEFORE THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, A. D. 1994 AS TO THE MANNER OF ITS SERVICE.
AND HAVE YOU THERE THIS WRIT OF SUMMONS FOR CONTEMPT. GIVEN UNDER MY HANDS AND SEAL OF THIS SUPREME COURT, THIS 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, A. D.1994. s/Samuel Bedell-Fahn t/Samuel Bedell-Fahn
We shall also quote in this dissent the returns filed by the Minister of Justice J. Laveli Supuwood:
“IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA
OCTOBER TERM, A. D. 1994
PRESENT: HIS HONOUR JAMES G. BULL, CHIEF JUSTICE
” HIS HONOUR E. WINFRED SMALLWOOD, ASS. JUSTICE
” HIS HONOUR BOIMA K. MORRIS, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ” HIS HONOUR VICTOR D. HNE, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ” HIS HONOUR FRANK W. SMITH…. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS: RESPONDENT’S RETURNS
Respondent in the above entitled cause, prays his Honourable
1. That contrary to the allegation contained in the writ of summons, he, at no time, did arrest and detain His Honour M. Wilkins Wright, Resident Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit for Montserrado County.
WHEREFORE, respondent prays this Honourable Court to purge him of all contempt charges and accord him such further remedies as this Honourable Court may deem just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted: by and thru his counsel
David Gbala, Counsellor-At-Law Deputy Minister of Justice
Peter A. Gbelia, Counsellor-At-Law, Deputy Minster of Justice
C. Ameisa Reeves, Counsellor-At-Law, Solicitor General Dated this 14th day of December, A. D. 1994. $4.00 Revenue Stamps affixed on the original.
When the contempt proceeding was called, the following officials of the Justice Ministry, namely, David Gbala, Deputy Minister of Justice, Peter Y. Gbelia, Deputy Minister of Justice and C. Amiesa Reeves, Solicitor General, who filed the returns on behalf of the Minister of Justice, did not appear to argue said returns. Instead, it was the Minister of Justice himself who decided to appear in his own behalf, perhaps for the purpose of ridiculing and vilifying the Supreme Cburt. The Minister was then asked to explain his reason for addressing a letter to the Chief Justice stating that he would arrest Resident Circuit Judge Wilkins Wright of the 6th Judicial Circuit Court of Montserrado County. The Minister stated in an arrogant manner that contrary to allegation contained in the writ of summons, he at no time arrested Judge Wright and therefore the writ of summons for contempt is false and misleading.
The Court asked Minister Supuwood whether he sought the advice of Chairman David D. Kpomakpor of the LNTG regarding the arresting of Judge Micah Wright. His answer was that he did not see his way clear to answer this question because it was not the issue before the court.
In answering another question put to Minister Supuwood by a member of the Bench, his response was the following:
“I wish to say that the members of the Supreme Court are to be calibre of highest trust and confidence to carry out the interest of citizens in the execution of its judicial duties so as to bring a good name to our judicial system within the Republic of Liberia but not to tarnish its integrity by asking unreasonable questions that are contrary to the allegation contained in the writ of summons”.
In answering another question posed to the Minister from the Bench, his reply was, that the question was immaterial and therefore he was not at liberty to answer that question.
Minister Supuwood further stated that his letter to the Chief Justice was intended to seek advice. But when asked to state what authority he possessed as Minister of Justice to seek advice from the Chief Justice in reference to carrying out the responsibilities of his office, the Minister replied that he could not answer because this question was without the confines of the writ of summons issued for him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for the arrest of Judge Micah Wilkins Wright.
The Minister also said to the court that a question asked him was unreasonable and that the court should confine itself to the writ of summons for contempt, as the subject of contempt is the arrest of Judge Wright and the judge was not arrested.
When. Minister Supuwood was asked how did he expect the Bench to know that he did not arrest Judge Wright when his letter to the Chief Justice said that he had no other alternative but to arrest the judge, this is how the Minister answered: “the facts contained in the writ are contrary and not factual”, but if the court had reason to believe that Judge Wright was arrested, they could call Judge Wright to ascertain if he was arrested”.
Minister Supuwood was also asked this question: “Did you attempt to arrest Judge Wilkins Wright”? Answer, “I am not here to show intentions or intents but to defend myself against the writ of contempt. I must say that the judge was not arrested but the intention was declared”.
Minister Supuwood finally ended his contemptuous discourse with a statement to the effect that the reconstruction of the Supreme Court of Liberia was carried out in Cotonou immediately after the 1990’s cease fire and, that it was through the instrumentality of a committee which included Mr. Supuwood, Mr. Charles Taylor, Dr. Amos Sawyer and other diplomatic dignitaries that this court was constituted. That the committee reposed confidence in the members of the court to carry on the function of administering transparent justice. However, he was surprised to note that transparent justice was not meted out to parties litigants who came to the Supreme Court for justice. Minister Supuwood earlier stated it was he who advocated the reconstitution of the Supreme Court with the hope that it would carry out justice to its people but he regretted to note that the Supreme Court was doing otherwise than is expected of the court by going into issues not brought before it in this contempt proceeding.
My colleagues and I are in agreement regarding the arrogant, discourteous and repulsive attitude of Minister J. Laveli Supuwood when he appeared before this court to answer in contempt. However, I disagree with my colleagues in their assessment and analysis of the offense and the punishment that should be meted to this official of our government who is a lawyer, the principal advisor to the Government of Liberia on all legal matters and the Dean of the Bar of the Supreme Court. Indeed Counsellor Supuwood occupies a venerable and enviable position in this society, one which demands selfrespect, personal discipline, candor and honesty. We regret to say that this counsellor has demonstrated everything to the contrary in his appearance before this high Court in this contempt proceeding. This lawyer took a solemn oath before he was admitted to the Bar of this Supreme Count. In that oath
Counsellor Supuwood repeated the following words: “I will always demean myself as a gentleman, and a respectable and honourable citizen of the Republic of Liberia, and will support the Constitution, and uphold the laws of my country; and the Rules of all Courts of my country, and will recognize the Judiciary and other offices thereof and their authority ….”.
It is my view that the Honourable Counsellor and Minister of Justice violated this entire portion of the solemn oath which he took at the time of his admission to the Bar of this Court. This violation is clearly evident from the contents of this letter addressed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Liberia which has been quoted above, and from his performance in responding to the several questions posed to him during the hearing of the contempt proceeding which was held before this court on the 14th day of December 1994. These violations are in themselves contemptuous.
According to the Minister of Justice, as contained in his letter to the Chief Justice, Judge Wright approved an injunction bond in a case instituted in the Civil Law Court for Montserrado County, by a group of Concerned Women against the present Interim Government, the Liberia National Transitional Government (LNTG), prohibiting a local bank, the Inter-national Trust Company from paying any of the Maritime funds to the LNTG; that Judge Wright had no authority to sign said bond because His Honour Varnie D. Cooper, was the assigned judge who was at the time presiding over the said Civil Law Court for Montserrado County. This act of Judge Wight, the Minister concluded, was criminal which he labelled economic and security sabotage against the Government and people of Liberia. The Minister said further that because of the criminal act of Judge Wright, he was left with no other alternative but to arrest Judge Wright.
Judge Micah Wilkins Wright is the Resident Judge of the Civil Law Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, Montserrado County and is fully clothed with authority to exercise the function which the Minister styled as criminal even where another judge is assigned to his circuit. Must we believe that the Justice Minister of the Republic of Liberia is not aware of the constitutional privilege granted to judges from arrest for judicial acts done by them in the course of judicial proceedings or is the Minister ignorant of the statute which states that a resident judge may concurrently act on all matters coming before the court with the assigned judge? CONSTITUTION OF LIBERIA, Art.73; Judiciary Law, Rev. Code 17:3.10. Such blatant violation of Article 73 of the Constitution and section 3.10 of the Judiciary Law by the Minister of Justice must be considered not only a serious violation of the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Liberia, but also a violation of the Minister’s oath as a lawyer. These violations, coupled with the disrespect shown to this Honourable Court, render the Minister of Justice guilty of criminal contempt. Minister Supuwood argued before us that he did not arrest Judge Wright but, even if we accept his argument, can it not be said that the Minister intended to arrest the Judge? According to law writers intent is a necessary element in criminal contempt, and that no one can be punished for a criminal contempt unless the evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit it. The contempt referred to here is subjective. The intent or purpose of the alleged contempt must be ascertained from all the acts, words, and circumstances surrounding the occurrence. 17 AM. JUR. 2d, Contempt, § 8.
It is my view that Minister Supuwood’s letter which fully explained the act which he alleged the Judge committed and which he classified as criminal in said letter and the concluding part of his letter stating that he had no other alternative but to arrest the judge for the alleged crime committed indicate sufficient words and circumstances of his intent to arrest the judge.
The Supreme Court has in the past dealt very harshly with lawyers who were guilty of contempt of the Court. As early as 1885, an Attorney General of the Republic of Liberia was adjudged guilty of contempt for advising the Chief Executive that Chief Justice C. L. Parson had no authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus after the Chief Justice had ordered the writ issued. The Court held that the duty of the Attorney General is to advise the general government officers of all legal questions relating to their respective offices. Legal questions are where doubts or differences arise on certain state of facts; and where the party demurs, the decision of a competent judge is to be sought for. Where the advice of the Attorney is given with the view to nullify rulings or proceedings of a Justice of the Supreme Court, the act becomes a contempt. The Court went on the say that by such act the Attorney General has attached greater importance to his office than has been given by the Legislature. Proceedings Upon a Writ of Habeas Corpus Issued by the Chief Justice, Republic of Liberia[1885] LRSC 4; , 1 LLR 190 (1885).
In another contempt case In re: MacDonald Acolatse, Respondent, the Counsellor accused the Supreme Court of corruption in a letter he wrote to the Chief Executive. The Counsellor was adjudged guilty of contempt and was barred from the practice of law, and the Court held that a lawyer who attempts to create conflict between the Executive and the Judicial Branches of the government by seeking a review by the Chief Executive of a decision of the Supreme Court in a civil case is subject to disbarment. Counsellor Acolatse was dis-barred and forbidden to ever practice law, directly or indirectly before any judicial forum or administrative agency in the Republic of Liberia.
Also in the contempt case In re: C. Abayomi Cassell[1961] LRSC 22; , 14 LLR 391(1961), this eminent Counsellor-At-law and a one time Attorney General, was held in contempt of court and disbarred for unbecoming remarks made in the presence of the Chief Justice of the Republic of Liberia at an international conference of lawyers held in Nigeria. The Supreme Court considered these remarks contemptuous. Counsellor Cassell was adjudged guilty of contempt of this court and disbarred from the practice of law forever. The court said in In re Cassell that it will punish for contempt any deceptive practice which might have the tendency to discredit the judicial branch of government or which might belittle it for its decisions, or, which might embarrass this court in the performance of its duties, or which might show disrespect to it or its Justices, or which might defy its authority.
We perceive no difference between In re Acolatse and Cassell, and the present contempt case against Counsellor J. Laveli Supuwood.
Counsellor Supuwood by his acts and his performance during the contempt proceeding, demonstrated gross disrespect to this court and its Justices and the action taken by him as evident in his letter, addressed to the Chief Justice, dated December 10, 1994 defies the authority of this Court.
Minister of Justice Supuwood is not only the principal legal advisor to the government of Liberia but he is also the Dean of the Bar of this Supreme Court. Therefore, it is my view that this lawyer deserves greater punishment for such reprehensible acts committed against the dignity and authority of the Judiciary branch in general, and in particular to the Supreme Court and its Justices.
I therefore strongly disagree with my colleagues of this Bench that a mere fine is sufficient punishment for this lawyer under these circumstances. The offense committed by the lawyer against the Judiciary deserves no lesser penalty than suspension from the practice of law in this Republic for some definite period, not less than six months to one year.
Before concluding, I should like to express my gratitude to Counsellor Joseph P. H. Findley who served as amicus curiae in this contempt case. Counsellor Findley is one of our stalwart experienced lawyers who has held the positions of circuit judge and Senator of his County, Grand Bassa. We note particularly Counsellor Findley’s plea made to this Court to tender justice with mercy to the Minister of Justice but notwithstanding this fact, when this Court afforded the Minister of Justice an unusual second chance to address this Court, after Counsellor Findley’s plea, it was than that the Minister was even more arrogant.
Hence, my dissent.