Hans Armstrong, a self-proclaimed British investor and alleged Attorney-in-Fact for two Czech Republic investors, Martin and Pavel Miloschewsky, who filed a US$5 million lawsuit against the Secretary of the Liberian Senate, J. Nonbolor Singbeh, is said to be engaged in tarnishing the reputation of judges and the Judiciary of the Republic of Liberia.
Judges mentioned by Armstrong include His Honor Roland Dahn, Resident Judge, 8th Judicial Circuit, Nimba County; His Honor Blamo Dixon, Resident Judge, 1st Judicial Circuit, Criminal Assizes “C”, Montserrado County; His Honor Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, Reliving Judge, Republic of Liberia; His Honor Scheaplor R. Dunbar, Assigned Circuit Judge, Civil Law Court Annexed “B”, Montserrado County; and Her Honor Victoria Worlobah Duncan, Stipendiary Magistrate, Kakata Magisterial Court, Margibi County.
A letter written by Armstrong to the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Her Honor Sie-A-Nyene Yuoh, on November 10, 2022 reminds the Chief Justice about his complaint of unethical conduct against the judges—a letter he copied to the United States embassy, British embassy, European Union, French embassy and the UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
Even though the complaint was originally registered on November 9, 2020, Armstrong, on September 2, 2022 wrote His Honor Francis Korkpor, Sr. and withdrew the complaint only against Judge Blamo Dixon and requested that the judge, who had earlier recuse himself from the case, to resume jurisdiction over the matter. His withdrawal was without any reservation.
In his communication to former Chief Justice Korkpor, dated September 2, 2022, under the subject, “Withdrawal of Complaint of Unethical Conduct against Judge Blamo A. Dixon without Reservation”, Armstrong said, “My name is Hans Armstrong, a British investor and the Attorney-in-Fact for two Czech Republic investors, Martin and Pavel Miloschewsky, who filed a US$5 million economic sabotage, theft of property, forgery and criminal conspiracy case against the Secretary of the Liberian Senate, Nanborlor Singbeh, and several others, which case is still pending undecided at Criminal Court ‘C’ at the Temple of Justice.
“Your Honor, I have decided to withdraw my November 9, 2020 complaint of unethical conduct against Judge A. Blamo Dixon, Resident Circuit Judge, First Judicial Circuit, Criminal Court C for Montserrado County without reservation.”
The letter continued, “Your Honor, forwarded the said complaint to the Judiciary Inquiry Commission (JIC) for investigation, as a result Judge Dixon recused himself from the case.”
Legal luminaries are beginning to wonder whether the tactics employed by Armstrong is not only meant to delay the case before the court and tarnish the hard-earned reputation of the judges he keeps mentioning in his letters, as he did not provide any reason for withdrawing his case against Judge Blamo.
One is left to wonder why would Armstrong see to complain two years ago on ethical conduct and now requesting for a withdrawal against the Judge who recused himself at that time so as to preside over said case now—is it that the complaint against Judge Dixon had no merit as other complaints against other judges just for dilatory purpose?
The Hot Pepper, in finding answers to these questions, quizzed a sitting judge on the basis of anonymity and he said, “Mr. Armstrong, knowing that the case he is pursuing lacks merit, is bent on falsehood and false representation, complained Judges who do not want to dance to his tune of alleged mischief.”
The Judge lamented that how a judge, who was complained of unethical conduct in a particular case, would come to preside over the same case after having respectfully recused himself, such as Judge Dixon. He concluded that Armstrong may not be doing so in good faith, and that it shows that those complaints against Judges and Magistrates were all orchestrated by lies and deceits as exhibited by his withdrawal of his complaint against Judge Dixon whom he falsely accused almost two years ago. A professor of law at the Arthur Grimes School of Law also bemoaned Armstrong’s alleged engagement of a smear campaign against some members of the Judiciary Branch in order to destroy the good intentions of judges, thereby bringing the Judiciary into public ridicule.