Liberia: Acquit Alexander Cummings

Alexander Cummings of the ANC said "Together, we are stronger. The Liberian people have shown us that they are more willing to trust us if we are together."

Liberia: Acquit Alexander Cummings

.... Court of Public Opinion

D. Michael Yeah Sr.

In a democratic society, there are two categories of the court system; the Court of Law and the Court of Public Opinion (opinion poll).

Effective functioning of these two forms of the court system in a democratic society is essential. The strengths of the two supplement and inform a judge’s decision-making process to expediently dispense justice to the citizenry with diligence. 

Acquittal or conviction in any one of these two is equally important and powerful. For our case in Liberia, the court of law takes precedence to the extent that the court of public opinion is trampled upon and completely ignored.  It should be noted though, that the court of law is a subset of the court of public opinion because the function and operation of the court of law are subject to the critique and dogmatic analysis of public opinion in passing of judgment, inasmuch court of public opinion lacks legal, but moral power by any measures. 

In the court of public opinion, it is bizarre in our opinion for the solicitor general of the ministry of justice to take the path of the court of law and when it reaches the point of legal proof that moved him to take this path; he then asks the accused to bring the proof of that which supposed to legitimize his legal argument.

The co-defendants argued that they don’t have the “two copies of the original document signed on May 19, 2020”; the two copies of the original document the SG said to have been forged, the result of which would defraud the interests of many people in the public. 

Simply, the co-defendants as understood by us in the public said that the only document they know about and would produce is a copy attached to their response to the court, “the Framework Agreement that was filed with the National Elections Commission (NEC).”

Auch document is the one which the Unity Party genuinely acknowledged in its July 6, 2020 letter to the Chairman of the National Election Commission, transmitting its consent through a Resolution of its own, clearly indicating compliance to the CPP framework document signed by the political leaders on May 19, 2020, and subsequently reviewed by the party’s legal team and legitimately notarized. This was clearly understood by us in the public.

On the other hand, we equally understood the SG call for “two copies of original document signed on May 19, 2020” by political leaders which he alleged to be forged by the co-defendants. The co-defendants said that they don’t have such document because they don’t know about it.  We in the public understood that as well. The question now is, what would the judge say?

Will the judge say that the SG has proved his case since the co-defendants have said that they cannot produce the “two copies of original document signed on May 19, 2020” by political leaders that the SG allegedly complained were forged? There is where we of the public do not understand who actually is responsible to produce this particular document which should be the overwhelming proof of the SG’s accusation.

For us in the public, that is the crux of the case. Has the document that was alleged to be forged been produced by the accuser as proof, us to know that a document was truly forged. To us in the public, as long the SG has yet to provide the hard evidence of the crime of forgery, all his allegation afterwards hanging on this document to be forged with the intent to compromise the interest of people in the public or in the organization, appear to be a farfetched illusion of fantasy.  

As the public view it, intent cannot suggest an action, but the other way around. It is the action that would suggest intent. To date we in the public have not heard that the SG has produced the alleged forged document which is the document- of- action, for us to know that such action has transpired therefore it might be done with an innate intent.; but rather, in the absence of that, he pressured the court to compel the co-defendants to produce the document sent to the National Election Commission by way of the court issuing a Subpoena Duces Tecum on the co-defendants.

This to us in the public seems to be a glaring mark of government overreach.  However, there it seems clear that the SG has cleverly slid from the thrust of his accusation which is the commission of forging a particular document, either because of his inability or refusal to provide the document which should be the proof of his accusation and turned to the co-defendants’ document said to have been submitted to the NEC. We in the public closely take note of this.

Here, the public have observed that the SG turned to the document from the NEC submitted by the co-defendants simply because he does not have any document- of- action like the document he said to have been forged. The reason is that if he have had this alleged forged document, it would had given him a standing ground to say that it was forged in order to defraud the public or do sinister things against the interests of other members of the organization which he would had justify it to be the intent for his forgery allegation.

However, we in the public saw the document from the NEC as exhibited in newspapers; we never saw any forged document and it was duly notarized and legally stamped, and signed by a legitimate notary public officer. We do not know how genuine and legal that can be.

If the honorable SG cannot provide overwhelming evidence for forgery, which is the action for which he charged the accused, how can he say the intent which is the deception to fraud the public is justifiably possible? NOT POSSIBLE. How can he prove that the intention to swindle other people in the public when he cannot first prove that the action of forgery which is the alleged crime was ever committed in the first place to have better position the co-defendants to defraud the public which is the intent? 

Note, this is a criminal charge, not a political rhetorical into-indo. It must be proven beyond every doubt, not by conjecture. What is proven to be done legally and proof of allegation of forgery not proven by accusers cannot be looked at as it being of sinister intent to defraud other people. 

Criminal charges cannot be solved by rumbling narrative rhetoric by reading rules from the law books. It takes intelligence and serious thinking by presenting physical evidence; especially in forgery cases. To charge anyone of forgery crime, you should have overwhelming proof, not weak rumbling narratives obtained through responses from twisted questioning. HARD COPY OF THE FORGED DOCUMENT in question should be produced.

Unless the court has otherwise obtained such overwhelming evidences that has not been published as yet in the news media; the opinion of some of us in the public who have followed this case everyday sincerely plea that the co-defendants be granted legal reprieve to let them move freely to look after their family in peace, as we all stand together to build our beloved country. NOTE, ONE GOOD MAN CANNOT BUILD, BUT ALL GOOD MEN.

THANKS TO THE PUBLIC THAT POLLED THEIR OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS INTO THIS ARTICLE… the end.

The Author 

D. Michael Yeah Sr. is a Political Commentator and can be reached via phone: 07786390586 / 0886538465 or email: michaelyeah53@gmail.com