Scores of female lawyers and other legal practitioners who closely followed the confirmation hearing of Associate Justice-designate, Cllr. Cianeh Clinton-Johnson, are reportedly calling on the Senate to unconditionally reject her appointment. The female lawyers called on the Senate to perform its Constitutional role by needfully rejecting and denying the nomination of Cllr. Clinton-Johnson, in order to safeguard a presumptive legal embarrassment that looms if she ascends to the position.
The female lawyers claimed that Cllr. Clinton-Johnson, during the confirmation hearing, demonstrated her lack of knowledge of the Constitutional and Statutory laws by her inability to provide the needed Constitutional and Statutory interpretation of the laws as to why she should serve on the Bench of the Supreme Court.
“Let us be swift to note and inform the Senate and hearing senators that the Associate Justice-designate was more political in her presentation than legal when, whereas, the office of Associate Justice, for which she is now a designee as per the President’s nomination, is a top legal office and not one of politics; thus, it was the honest expectation of the legal community and public as a whole that the nominee would have frankly dealt with the Constitutional and Statutory questions of law asked her during the confirmation hearing. But, instead, she evaded them and chose to be more political in her response which, in our minds, was a strategy brought about by the nominee due to her lack of the actual practical knowledge of the Constitutional and statutory application of the laws and which must not be entertained by the Senate, as there is no room for such incompetence on the Supreme Court’s Bench, particularly where a Justice is by law to, at most, preside on his or her own and make independent judgements as chamber Justice,” a disenchanted female lawyer stated.
The legal practitioners pointed out that it was necessary to begin refreshing members of the Liberian Senate and public on the Constitutional and statutory questions of senators and the alleged scrambling, erroneous and evasive legal responses of the Associate Justice nominee, especially dwelling on a series of questions proffered by Senator Albert Chea to the nominee.
“Your CV presented us speaks to a wealth of experience you have in international human rights law and treaties, am I correct?” Senator Chea asked. The nominee answered, “Yes! Honorable senator.”
Senator Chea further asked, “Now madam nominee, as you may be aware, there is a growing issue within our jurisdiction these days: whenever decisions are made by our Supreme court as final arbiter of Justice within this jurisdiction, people against whom these decisions are taken often run to some international or regional court to which Liberia is a party, challenging the Supreme Court’s decision. If you are seated as Justice of the Honorable Supreme Court and a challenging party brought before you a judgment from such regional court, as the ECOWAS Court, to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision, what would be your opinion? Will you grant the foreign court’s decision to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision or what will be your opinion?”
Cllr. Cianeh Clinton-Johnson reportedly responded, “Honorable senator, the foreign court was brought in this country by you the Legislature through the enactment of the treaty; so whether the decision of such foreign court overrules the decision of the Supreme Court, it is the decision that you, the Legislature, made by rectifying that statute.”
At this stage, the response of the nominee, according to the disenchanted female lawyers, was not clear, prompting Senator Chea to say, “That response does not mean anything.” Then the Senator provided the answer in its proper perspective, indicating the Constitutional provision under Article 66, which makes decisions of the Supreme Court binding.
Also, the learned Senator added that the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn statutory laws that conflict with the Constitution and concluded on with a follow-up question, “Will such decision of the foreign court overrule the decision of the Supreme Court?”
“The nominee,” the female lawyers noted, “in gross lack of knowledge of the application of the Constitutional provision, insisted that she cannot imagine or cannot say, but insisted that there will be a decision jointly handled by the full Bench of the Supreme Court. She said, ‘When arguments are made, I will be able to make an informed decision.’ This suggests that the nominee is incapable of rendering independent decisions void of her colleagues’ input, which is seen by many of us as an issue of concern.
“This is outrageous of a lawyer wanting to mount the high court’s Bench as an Associate Justice! One can imagine what it will be like if such a lawyer is confirmed and seated as an Associate Justice. Moreso, being faced with critical Constitutional issues… Will she be able to make such independent decision aimed at legally stabilizing the nation? Impossible! Gathering from the interaction at the confirmation hearing, there would be absolutely no such opinion, as the nominee has already informed the Legislature, through the hearing senators, that she cannot act outside of the full Bench,” the female lawyers observed.
According to the scores of female lawyers, “Such Justice as Cianeh Clinton-Johnson, drawing from her responses to questions of law, will not be able to sit independently as a chamber Justice.
“More besides, the senator’s question pointed to Article 66 of the Constitution of Liberia, which provides that ‘The Supreme Court shall be the final arbiter of all Constitutional issues and shall exercise…’ Contrary hereto, the nominee reasoned that contrary to this Constitutional provision, rulings from a foreign court domesticated by Constitutional act of the rectification of treaties by the Legislature will, in her opinion, overturn rulings of the Honorable Supreme court. What a misrepresentation of the law and demonstration of incompetence?” The female lawyer wondered.
Another female lawyer contested that, in accordance with Article 57 Chapter 18, Section 18.2 of the Criminal Procedure Law/1LCLR, when asked by Senator Bartequah as to what she will do when rights of pretrial rape detainees are violated, as is contrary to the law to have them imprisoned for more than two terms without trial, she said, “The professionally unlicensed but now Associate Justice-designate, contrary to Chapter 18.2 of the Criminal Procedure Law, misrepresented and said that the judge can do nothing unless the defense sole requests.”
According to her, “This is a circumvention of the law, as contrary thereto, the law under 18.2 provides that ‘unless good cause is shown, a court shall dismiss a complaint against a defendant who is not indicted by the end of the next succeeding term after his arrest’; and ‘unless good cause is shown, a court shall dismiss an indictment if the defendant is not tried during the next succeeding term after the finding of the indictment…’
“In the face of this statutory law, the judge now Associate Justice-designate insisted, by justification of her violation of the rights of thousands of pretrial rape detainees, that the court can do nothing concerning the release of defendants detained without trial, for over two terms of court. Whereas, the law under 18.2 cited herein, gives the judge or court the right to, in such case, release such accused without any application from either the prosecution or defense but by judicial notice of the law herein. For these circumvention and misrepresentation of the laws before the Honorable Legislature by this nominee, thereby representing her manifested lack of knowledge and application of the laws, the Senate must needfully reject the nominee to safe the Supreme Court and the nation of her would-be erroneous opinions,” the disenchanted female lawyer contended.
