For God in Heaven’s sake, can Liberian government officials not smell? Have they lost their sense of smell to the point where they cannot or are unable to fathom (catch drift of, perceive, decipher) their own flatulence (intestinal gas, fart)?
The old saying that “a man who is unable to smell his own fart will always cause problems for himself and others”. What fate would befall him if, for example, he involuntarily farted, let out very foul-smelling air in the presence of the king and his royal guests?
If our officials have lost their sense of smell, how come they quickly appear, more often than not, to always smell farts either by ranking US officials or the US government itself?
Perhaps, this question may appear irrelevant but when one considers the contextual meaning of the statement “when Washington sneezes, Liberia catches a cold”, one cannot escape coming to grips with the fact that Liberia has in effect served over so many years as a virtual footstool of US interests in Africa, meaning that the US could change and has changed governments at will (regime change).
Oxford University Professor Dr. Niels Hahn cites as an example, the case of former President William R. Tolbert whose bloody overthrow on April 12, 1980, was masterminded by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). In his book, “Two Centuries of US Military Operations in Liberia – Challenges of Resistance and Compliance”, he writes:
“Tolbert’s administration marks a significant shift from the Tubman administration and was inspired by Kwame Nkrumah’s and Sékou Touré’s notion of socialist Pan-Africanism. During Tolbert’s administration, social reforms were implemented, which gradually introduced free education and health care, pensions schemes, low-cost social housing, and food security. The GoL broke the strong alliance with the USG and established close relations with socialist-oriented countries, such as East Germany, Guinea, Libya, the People’s Republic of China, Romania, and the USSR, from which Liberia received financial and technical support for comprehensive agricultural programs and the establishment of more than 30 state-owned enterprises. The Open Door Policy that expanded under Tubman’s administration was gradually reversed. Concession agreements with foreign corporations were reviewed, and local infant industries were protected by import tariffs. The GoL further restricted the USG from using its military bases in Liberia…”
“These restrictions on US businesses and military bases and closer relations with the USSR and China resulted in several US covert and overt military operations in Liberia that removed three governments from power between 1980 and 2003. During this period, the USG did not succeed in securing a long-term, stable, US-friendly government in Liberia. From 1990 to 2003, the country experienced full-scale war involving more than 15 nation states, most significantly Britain, Burkina Faso, France, Guinea, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Libya, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and the United States.”
Perhaps it is within the above context the rather knee-jerk response of the Supreme Court attributing reasons for the JIC’s prolonged delay in the handling of the Brosius case to resource constraints can be explained.
This is a matter which had long since been in the public domain so it can be safely assumed that the Court was aware because lawyers representing Brosius had filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against Judge Mappy’s ruling.
A 2014, October 23, lead front page story carried in the Daily Observer headlined, “Commercial Court Judge Erred in US$8 Million Dollar Case”, reads.. “The ruling in a US$8 million proper accounting case handed down against Ducor Petroleum by the Chief Judge of the Commercial Court, Eva Mappy Morgan, has been reversed by two other Judges of the same court, Chan-Chan A. Paegar and Richard S. Klah Sr”.
For the record, Judge Richard Klah has since resigned under threat of impeachment for improper conduct related to bribery and extortion in another case.
But the issue here remains the reversal of Judge Mappy’s ruling by her colleagues because under the rules she could not have single-handedly sat, heard and ruled in a case involving more than US$1 million.
Why did the Supreme Court not stand by the majority opinion of the panel of Judges, of which Judge Mappy was member, is a question begging answers.
Just imagine, a complaint of unethical conduct filed against a judge nine (9) years ago lingered at the Supreme Court. Not having received redress from the Court, Brosius took his case to ECOWAS. The ECOWAS Court ruled that he should exhaust all locally available legal remedies first.
Even then, nothing happened until the US State Department “farted”. And all of a sudden the sense of smell is regained and then, a knee-jerk response, a very feeble one, emanates forth from the High Court: “resource constraints”.
But this is after the fact. Besides, nothing has been said about restitution of the cash withdrawn from Brosius’ Ducor Petroleum account under court orders signed by Judge Mappy. Why is this so?
By the way, there is a growing tide of public opinion calling for the impeachment of Judge Mappy. Will the Supreme Court support her impeachment as it did in the case of Judge Richard Klah? And is “what’s good for the goose also good for the gander”?
What signals are or has the Supreme Court conveyed by its handling of this matter? According to views sampled by this newspaper, the public suspects the involvement of higher-ups who they believe have apparently “eaten the money”.
Sadly, Judge Mappy is now left alone to face the music. Only recently she had unveiled the publication of a book on legal ethics. Whatever this would mean for her future remains unclear as it ranks very low on the list of urgent public concerns.
What is of rising urgent concern is whether can this Supreme Court bench, as currently composed, can be trusted to impartially, fairly and transparently preside over elections disputes complaints arising from the 2023 polls. Lest it be forgotten, it was the conspiracy of the Supreme Court and the Elections Commission to legitimize stolen elections results in 1985 that led to civil war in 1990.