The Supreme Court docket of Liberia has intervened in the ongoing financial sabotage case involving extinct Finance Minister Samuel Tweah, ordering Resolve Blamo Dixon of Criminal Court docket ‘C’ to recuse himself over considerations of bias. Chamber Justice Yarmie Quiqui Gbeisay issued the directive, citing prejudicial remarks by the come to a determination that, according to the prosecution, undermined the integrity of the trial.
The controversy stems from remarks made by Resolve Dixon whereas presiding over a dispute in regards to the validity of an US$8 million bond secured by Tweah to steer positive of detention. In his December 20, 2024 ruling, Resolve Dixon wondered: “The court wonders whether or not the detention of only co-defendant Samuel D. Tweah, Jr., at the Monrovia Central Prison Compound will help to establish the case of the prosecution against the defendants.” The authorities lawyers argued that this assertion, amongst others, revealed an absence of impartiality and suggested the come to a determination used to be compromised.
Justice Gbeisay, in his ruling, acknowledged that the Supreme Court docket learned Resolve Dixon’s behavior and comments inappropriate, especially in a case that has drawn critical public attention. “The Supreme Court is appalled by such statements of the trial judge,” Gbeisay said. He criticized Dixon’s commentary, questioning why a come to a determination would build this kind of assertion in a splendid case, adding that it used to be prejudicial to the prosecution’s interests.
Gbeisay emphasised the precise principle that judges must no longer utterly be honest but must also seem to be honest. “The purpose of an objection to a bond is not to jail the accused but to correct such defects so that the bond will be legally sufficient and meet the standards set by the statute,” he explained, noting that the prosecution used to be simply exercising its honest to inquire the bond’s validity.
He extra wired that judicial neutrality is paramount, stating, “Our law requires that all parties must enjoy the neutrality of a judge. This mandate requires that the judge confine himself as much as possible to his own responsibilities and leave to counsel and members of the jury their respective functions.”
In rejecting the authorities’s initial circulation for recusal, Resolve Dixon argued that the prosecution failed to display staunch precise grounds for his removal. He claimed that beneath Liberian law, recusal is warranted utterly in instances of demonstrable warfare of interest, confirmed blood kinfolk, or other statutory reasons established by the Supreme Court docket. Then again, the Supreme Court docket disagreed, with Justice Gbeisay asserting that a come to a determination’s perceived bias, whether or no longer staunch or implied, is adequate grounds for recusal.
“If a judge, by his actions and words, has caused a party in a case before him to believe that he is biased and prejudiced in the matter, and the party reasonably believes they will not get a fair trial, the judge, for the sake of transparency and justice, should recuse himself,” Gbeisay said. He added, “Judges must be free from any improper influence such as pressure by individual litigants or other undue influence.”
Justice Gbeisay extinct the ruling to underscore the broader principle of judicial integrity. “It is of great importance that courts should be free from reproach, as the judiciary should enjoy an elevated rank in the estimation of mankind,” he said. “A judge is expected to apply and interpret the law in a neutral way, and that must be seen from his general conduct, deportment, and behavior in and out of court.”
The Supreme Court docket in the end granted the authorities’s petition for a writ of certiorari, leading to Dixon’s removal from the case. The determination reinforced the principle that a trial must no longer utterly be comely but must even be perceived as comely by all parties involved. Gbeisay concluded by reminding all judges that their words and actions must no longer originate even the looks to be like of bias or partiality, as this erodes public self belief in the judiciary.
Join free AllAfrica Newsletters
Collect the most up-to-date in African information delivered straight to your inbox
This building follows a heated precise wrestle in which authorities lawyers accused Resolve Dixon of bias and wondered the validity of precise paperwork filed by Tweah’s protection team. The prosecution argued that one in all Tweah’s lawyers used to be no longer licensed to practice in Liberia, rendering earlier filings invalid. These allegations extra refined the already contentious case.
The removal of Resolve Dixon marks a serious step in a trial closely watched by the public, as it involves high-profile allegations of financial sabotage. The Supreme Court docket’s determination underscores its commitment to ensuring an even judicial process, free from any taint of bias or impropriety.
