That’s all it takes to cross the line and do the “indefensible” … just to get what you want!
By Attorney Keith Neville Asumuyaya Best
A number of Dailies this week reported a statement by the UN Country representative, Mr. Uchenna Emelonya, calling for an independent and objective judicial system that will always dispense justice impartially.
Other papers and opinion leaders on both radio and television have been having a field-day with the ongoing discussion, in addition to earlier readers and listeners, who had been trying to find a happy median, (middle ground) by which to lay the controversy to rest.
According to one of the papers, (FrontpageAfrica) “Mr. Emelonya’s comments came amid (in the middle of) ongoing, impeachment proceedings hanging over Associate Justice Kabineh M. Ja’neh, of the Liberian Supreme Court; recently, some members of the House of Representatives have been pushing for Justice Ja’neh’s impeachment, the paper continued.
We whole-heartedly support Representative Emelonya, in his call for such a system, not mired (caught up, stuck) in politics. Not au courant (hip to, up-to-date) with much else that was in the works or going down, the UN man, it seems, had jumped into the heart of the Ja’neh impeachment imbroglio, (embarrassment, mess) without bothering to discover what really might have been underway.
Understandably, then, he could do little more than skirt, (evade, speak around) the issues, thus avoiding a few relevant aspects he remains out of touch with. In other words, he was tricked into believing that the political-sideshow that CDC/Legislative zealots had been engineering—in line with their private, political agenda—was for real.
But the ruse (trick) was designed to help carry out the nefarious (wicked) scheme that Ascarous Gray and his cohorts’ had been plotting, to eliminate Counselor Ja’neh from the Judiciary: all that the trio of Gray, Chambers and Fallah needed, was to get wind of Annie Constance’s letter to President Weah, asking his help in getting back the house her mentally unstable son had given away to the Associate Justice.
It is this “house grab,” that threatens the very Judiciary that the UN man believes he is doing everything to protect by discouraging that group of three from continuing the effort to have Mr. Ja’neh impeached (put on trial) and ultimately, removed from the Judiciary.
A Judiciary that includes Justice Kabineh Ja’neh who—according to the Constances—has been the architect of an insidious, (menacing, dangerous) plot that had been allowed—if not encourage—to slip through the court system!
UN MAN FINALLY GETS IT
And shouldn’t the public be prepared and encouraged to look into, and help to set such a situation straight? Whoever could, might be able to do so by speaking up; or by calling for whatever is appropriate to get the proper thing done. I mean, we are talking about the Judiciary, man! Without that, there is nothing else.
Fortunately, we happen to have just such a man who has stepped up to say what needs to be said to ensure that this citizenry does not sit back supinely, accepting whatever people in authority dish out to the nation’s poor or helpless.
That person is none other than the same UN High Commission representative, who ended his speech, calling on Civil Society actors to now build a very strong antenna to challenge government and hold them accountable on issues of human rights and other national issues! Mr. Emelonya has done more than his share, though he might not be aware of it.
WITH JA’NEH, NOTHING PERSONAL
We need say no more on this, except that there is nothing personal about what this paper finds itself called upon to draw attention to, in the interest of our nation and people. We applaud Associate Justice Ja’neh’s positive contributions in the past, and commend him especially for that lone, albeit, singular dissenting-opinion crafted against his colleagues on the Bench, in the heat of presidential and legislative elections, about eight or nine months ago.
However, come ‘hell or high water,’ we cannot stand by idly (doing nothing) yet allowing this institution to lose its moorings, (stability), by supporting an individuals’ penchant, (strong inclination, a definite and continuing liking) for doing what he wishes, knowing that, chances are, he might be able to get away with it?
But who is going to look after the rights of people who get hurt by those in the business of Justice, who took an oath to make the law work in the interest of all, especially those that cannot help themselves? And it is taking place while everyone—Mr. Uchenna Emelonya, the UN country representative included—is turning a blind eye, caring only about being heard saying: don’t bring politics into the Judiciary.”
According to Mrs. Annie Yancy Constance and her son, Nathaniel, Justice Ja’neh has opened a political can of worms—by putting his hand in Mrs. Constance’s cookie jar—now that he is collecting rent from property he holds, which has weaved a web of such tenacity, it threatens the entire Judiciary—and the nation.
Also featured earlier this week, was a Daily Observer editorial that called on President George Oppong Weah to do something major about ending the culture of impunity that has caused a loss of many lives in this country, over the past half-a-century. “Impunity promotes injustice and undermines social cohesion, (unity, pulling together),” the editorial added.
In a discussion with a long-time friend and colleague, the issue of land came up, making it easy for my friend—a judge—to make the following remark about the Constance case: “Which Associate Justice, in his or her right mind, could ever stoop to doing something like that (what has gone down with 90-year-old Annie Constance) knowing what the law has to say—and would do about anything resembling that, perpetrated, (carried out, pull off) by a lawyer, much more, an Associate Justice,” she asked?
My reply to the young lady: Anyone who courts impunity, risks breaking the law. But, if one expects to walk away scot free, after breaking the law, then it can be done by anyone prepared to take the risk since, all it takes to cross the line and do the “indefensible, (what that person knows he or she cannot defend after breaking the law, is a two-pronged guarantee. With that guarantee: the goods and a free ride, the law will be broken by any individual prepared to do what must be done to take (1)what he or she wants, and a second guarantee; (2) that there will be no penalty. It can be done, and Mrs. Constance and her son say: “it has been done.”
Next Week: Will the Legislature accept the challenge and “cross the Rubicon,” in “Defense” of their “Assertion,” and the “Assertion” of their “Defense” of their Constitution-Decreed, Separation of Power Right and Prerogative?