MONROVIA-Evidence from the April 22, 2022 decision of Associate Justice Jamesetta Howard Wolokollie, current presiding Justice in Chambers of the Supreme Court, suggests that she, like most other Justices, may have a bias blind spot (meaning the cognitive bias of recognizing the impact of biases on the judgment of others, while failing to see the impact of biases on one’s own judgment), whenever it comes to case that involved the Ecobank Liberia Limited.
In her April 22, decision, Justice Wolokollie declined to issue an alternative writ of certiorari, as prayed for by the government lawyers, mandating Judge Ciapha Carey of the Criminal Court ‘C’ to reverse his ruling granting co-defendant Ecobank, a separate trial in the US$5million economic sabotage case.
Justice Wolokollie’s April 22, decision, copy with this paper, partly reads; “By directive of Her Honor Jamesetta Howard Wolokollie, Associate Justice presiding in Chambers, you are hereby mandated to resume jurisdiction, and proceed in keeping with law as the Justice has declined to issue the writ prayed for by the petitioner (government lawyers).
Normally, Chamber Justice of Supreme Court, when such a request is made to them, the Justice will cite the parties for a conference, to listen to the lawyers arguing their respective sides of the case before making any final determination on the matter, maybe to grant or not to grant the writ.
This was not with the case of Wolokollie’s April 22, decision, though she had cited the parties, the lawyers representing the bank and those of the writ prayed for by the petitioner (government lawyers).
In her citation for the conference dated, April 18, and copy with this paper, reads “By directive of Her Honor Jamesetta Howard Wolokollie, Associate Justice presiding in Chambers, you are hereby cited to a conference with Her Honor on Monday, April 25, at 11:am, in connection with the above captioned case.”
Surprisingly, when the government lawyers appeared for Wolokollie’s conference, they were shocked to hear from the Associate Justice presiding in Chambers, that she had already made a determination into the matter, requesting the lawyers to go to the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, to receive copy of her decision, despite convening the conference for Monday, April 25.
It is an unfortunate reality that Justice Wolokollie could determine a request by the government lawyers, just three days, before her scheduled conference, where it was anticipated that she was going to listen to arguments by lawyers, prosecutors and the bank before her action.
Her action reflects the reality that she, like anyone of the Justice, is susceptible to bias.
It can be recalled that Judge Carey, on March 29, ruled and granted Ecobank’s motion for severance and separate trial, on ground that, if the bank were to be tried along with the Secretary of the Liberian Senate, Nanborlor Singbeh, and other defendants, it defenses and interests would be prejudiced, in the soon to come US$5million case.
The bank is indicted by the government of allegedly conspiring with Singbeh and the other defendants to open a bogus current account, in which, two Czech Republic investors, Martin Miloschewsky and Pavel Miloschewsky, unknowingly wired about US$2,495,109, and said money was siphoned from that bogus account with the assistance of the bank’s management and Singbeh.
The bank, however, filed a motion for severance and separate trial before Judge Carey, arguing that it will be prejudiced has she tried along with the other defendants, to include Singbeh, because their defenses are hostile to the other co-defendants.
Interestingly, during his ruling, Carey said, Ecobank is a legally registered financial institution in the Republic of Liberia, that has operated for more than fifteen (15), uninterrupted years.
Also, according to Carey, as a financial institution, the co-defendant Ecobank is regulated by the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL).
Carey went on, that the indictment jointly charged the bank and other defendants with theft of property, forgery and criminal conspiracy.
“In the mind of this court, the bank argument that its defenses and interests are different from the other defendants’ is correct,” the Judge justified granting the bank request for severance and separate trial.
In the government petition, filed by Counselor Wesseh A Wesseh, Assistant Minister of litigation, at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), Wesseh prayed Justice Wolokollie to review, correct and set aside that which is believed by him to be an erroneous ruling made by Judge Carey.
Wesseh argued that Judge Carey abused his description, when he granted Eco bank’s separate trial.
Wesseh, however, argued that Carey was in error when he granted Ecobank’s a separate trial, as the bank was investigated along with other defendants, including Singbeh, by the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC)for not following the Central Bank of Liberia’s regulation.
Wesseh argued that Judge Carey abused his description, when he granted Ecobank’s separate trial.
“Ecobank’s management conspired with Singbeh to open a bogus current account, in which the Czech Republic investors, Martin Miloschewsky and Pavel Miloschewsky, unknowingly wired several millions United States dollars, and said money was siphoned from that bogus account by co-defendant Nanborlor Singbeh and others,” according to Wesseh’s petition.
Wesseh further contents, that, in Judge Carey’s ruling, the Judge emphasized that, co-defendant Ecobank, is a legally registered financial institution and is regulated by the CBL, “is a factual issue, that cannot be used as a conduit to grant her a severance and separate trial, having been indicted with criminal conspiracy in the indictment, which petitioner says, it will prove during trial of the case.”
Before the petition, Wesseh repeatedly told Carey that Ecobank was jointly indicted along with the other defendants to include Singbeh, however, the Judge played a deaf to hear the request, and ruled favoring the bank.
“They all participated in the same crimes, as such, their defenses are not hostile to the other defendants, and that if the bank were to be severed from the other defendants, and if the application were to be granted, it would collapse the criminal indictment brought against the rest of the other defendants,” Wesseh further argued, but, Carey did not see any magnitude of the argument.
It can be recalled that sometimes in 2019, the LACC conducted a comprehensive investigation, wherein, they said, between August 2013 to 2018, Singbeh with the knowledge and consent of Ecobank’s management, a “bogus accounts” was opened and operated, in the name of MHM Eko Liberia, a Czech Republic owned mining company, that has expressed interest to invest in the country.
That account, according to the LACC, was managed by the Secretary of the Liberian Senate Nanborlor Singbeh, then president and chief executive officer (CEO) of the company.
Besides, the anti-graft accused the bank of refusing to respect the regulations of the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL), about the opening of a foreign company’s account, with a foreign investors being signatories to the account.
To ignore the CBL’s regulations, the LACC claimed that the bank management with criminal intent decided to allow a Czech Republic national, Karel Socher, then general manager of MHM Eko, to serve as Signatory ‘B’ to the account.
Surprisingly, the Liberia Immigration Service (LIS), and the Ministry of Labor (MoL), according to the LACC, wrote the investigators that Socher did not hold a resident and work permits to qualify him under the CBL’s regulations to be one of the signatories to the account.
The LACC also claimed that another Czech Republic national, Ales Sranmek, who the bank named as Signatory ‘C’ has never travelled to Liberia, to open the account, according to the LIS’ letter.
The investigation also established that with those signatories, the bank, however, issued the company’s account number, titled: Ecobank#005-101-472-820-1.
It was that account, the anti-graft commission claimed, Socher and Singbeh used to influence two Czech Republic investors Martin Miloschewsky and Pavel Miloschewsky, to refer and deposit the amount of US$2,495,109.
The LACC relied on those documentary evidence to charge the bank of conspiring with Singbeh and Socher, to dupe the Miloschewsky brothers
Comments are closed.