By: Atty. Isaac W. Jackson, Jr.
Michael’s pathetic response amuses me on two levels. Firstly, I am concerned about the intellectual dishonesty it contains, and secondly, I couldn’t help but laugh at the zealotry with which Unity Party partisans have been vigorously sharing and joyfully celebrating it! What this confirms is that the Unity Party is not only shrinking in membership and experiencing an epic decline in intellectual acuity, but also, as organizations tend to resemble their leaders, the UP is clinging desperately to Weah administration’s paid agents for protection and lifeline. The horrific optics beamed to the world of Weah’s Solicitor-General shielding and protecting Oldman Boakai, and now, Michael who is Minister Samuel Tweah’s lawyer spewing out trash for their public consumption and celebration make for a sad epitaph in the demise of Beyan Kesselly’s and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s vaunted Unity Party, due immeasurably to the retarded leadership of Oldman Boakai.
To many, it is unsurprising that the Unity Party is now struggling with image problems. One of my friends put it crudely, when he said, what do you expect from a Party Chaired by an overweight, half Lebanese man; and an adulterous cheat who engages in the despicable conduct of forcing a young girl to kill her unborn child to cover his moral decrepitude as Secretary-General. I couldn’t agree more with my friend that the conduct of some of the people in the hierarchy of the Unity Party stinks in the nostrils of decent people.
Notably, in his latest tirade, Michael never once mentioned his initial ignoble sanctimony by which he sought to cast himself as some neutral person interested in seeing Liberian politics turn “honorable”. In fact, disabused of his pretenses, Michael is now referring to people he disagrees with as “zealots” who are engaged in “putrid contamination” and “shameful degradation”, and even dared to refer to some whose politics took the lives of many as “noble men”. Two points here: 1. Michael’s sense of judgment is as warped as his arguments and hatred for those he disagrees with who are supporting a change in the corrupt system from which he is currently a paid agent; and 2. Paid by Samuel Tweah, Michael is a sworn and dishonest political hatchet man of the Weah administration, and not as he initially sought to pass himself off as some neutral Liberian interested in seeing Liberian politics become “honorable”.
Now that we have compelled Michael to be exposed and overcome his shallow pretenses, let me address some of his other juvenile reasonings, as follows:
1. Unconstitutionality of “Exit Clause” – Here, Michael attempts to play words game as opposed to one of compelling reason. He correctly states that Article 17 is included in Chapter III of the Liberian Constitutional under the title Fundamental Rights. However, he deceives to not indicate that so, too, is Article 25. To therefore suggest that Article 17 confers a right and Article 25 does not is a legal deficiency in the reading of the Constitution, especially the enunciation of rights to persons provided for under Chapter III: Fundamental Rights. Running from Article 11 and ending at Article 26, all rights expatiated thereunder are fundamental rights guaranteed to Liberian citizens.
It follows therefore that Liberian citizens can enter into contracts with others, and same meeting the legal standards of contracts, must be regarded, guaranteed and honored by the Republic as legally binding, and not just contracts entered into by the Republic. Any lawyer worth the ilk would also know that “…no law shall be passed which might impair…” the right of Liberians to contractually obligate themselves, also extend to court judgments and decisions which may have the effect of undermining this fundamental right of Liberians. What kind of lawyer is this who will not understand such elementary interpretation?
Additionally, since Michael is shamelessly fussing over the Exit Clause, I, too, am constrained and inclined to offer him a free tutorial. Because, the Exit Clause is lawful and draws its wisdom from the legal principle of ‘nulla poena sine lege”. The Latin, translated in English means, no punishment without law. Conversely, it can be reasoned out properly that there is no law without punishment. Michael, be true to yourself; if the law does not prescribe a penalty who will obey it? In realistic and dispassionate terms, if the CPP framework Document did not prescribe penalty, do you think it was going to be respected one inch, knowing the history of the characteristic failures of coalitions in Liberian politics?
2. Inalienable right to associate – Article 17, as already elucidated is a fundamental right, as is Article 25. Micheal wishes to falsely impress that Article 17 is an “inalienable” right and Article 25 is not. Strict constructionist will rightly argue that Article 11(a) lists a number of “…inalienable rights, among which are the right of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of pursuing and maintaining security of the person and of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, subject to such qualifications as provided for in this Constitution.” (emphasis supplied)
Notably, “inalienable” is not specifically used in Article 17, and even when used in Article 11(a), it proceeds to end with a qualification, “… subject to such qualifications as provided for in this Constitution.” It is a totally perverse reading and warped interpretation of the Liberian Constitution to claim that rights are absolute, even if one elects to refer to them conveniently as “inalienable”. Additionally, if Article 17 confers an “inalienable right”, the same has to be said of Article 25, both of which fall under the same category of “Fundamental Right”. By the way, a basic doctrine of constitutional law is that no provision is to be read or interpreted as being in conflict with another – each provision of the Constitution is a reinforcement of the other.
3. “…[A]nd no law shall be passed by the Legislature which might impair this right” – As usual, Michael tries to intellectually deceive by misquoting Article 25 adding thereto the word “Legislature” when same is not in the actual wording of the said article. Such is the unforgiving character of intellectually dishonest people like Michael. By intentionally mentioning the word “Legislature”, he tries to change the context and meaning of Article 25 to suggest it can only be referring to the Legislature.
Of course, courts set out laws by their interpretation of what is the law. This is elementary. By limiting Article 25 to legislative actions, intellectually-dishonest Michael is misleading his readers to believe the article does not include decisions of courts which may necessarily and effectively impair the entering into and enforcement of contracts. Article 25 actually enjoins all of the branches and agencies of the Republic of Liberia from acting to obfuscate the right to contracts of Liberian citizens and all persons, both private and public.
At the risk of belaboring the point, Article 17 actually draws its logic from the philosophy of impenetrability. One cannot be, and be, at the same time. When Article 17 talks about the right “to associate fully with others or refuse to associate in political parties, trade unions and other organizations”, what Article 17 presupposes is that, no one should be forced against their will to associate in political parties or trade unions. For simplistic example, Liberia has several political parties. Four of the parties decided to work together under the CPP. So, if the four parties in the CPP were to force, compel or constrict other parties to join the CPP, that would be the violation of Article 17. However, if any of those parties decided to voluntarily associate with the CPP, they would be obligated and bound by the rules of the CPP. If this is too complicated for your tiny brain to comprehend, then you need prayer of deliverance from the yoke of the CDC Government.
It’s a shame that Michael and his likes don’t keep up with global events because if they did, just a glimpse at what obtained in the United Kingdom with Brexit would have prevented the colorless pretense with knowledge, and the unbridled audacity to publish the rubbish Michael wrote. The point is that the UK exercised its free will to associate with the EU on January 1, 1973, and when it wanted to exercise that same free will to leave the EU, it incurred obligations. In fact, after the people of the United Kingdom exercised their rights to vote in a referendum to leave the European Union, it took almost five years of a titanic political fight to actualize Brexit. And even at that, the UK is still underwriting its Brexit obligations under the Brexit divorce bill. This simple example drives home an elementary definition of contract; which says that contract is a legally enforceable agreement that creates and governs rights and obligations among its parties.”
So, it is downright preposterous and unintelligent to use the slippery argument about inalienable rights to dishonor the sanctity of contracts. That’s why in my piece I highlighted the fact that societal cohesion would suffer irredeemably if we were to scuttle this sacred and near universal commitment to the enforceability of legal contracts and obligations. The people of the United Kingdom, for example, exercised, to use your shameless straw, their inalienable rights to vote in a referendum to leave the EU but, they could not do so willy-nilly – they were bound by the obligations stipulated in the EU agreement.
You see, it’s no wonder Michael Diggs is spectacularly flunking the ABC of contract law publicly. Because, in recent times, it has to take a nonlawyer, one of Michael Diggs’ concubines to remind him of his obligation born out of an adulterous sexual relationship, when she dragged him to the Temple of Justice for child support. Since Michael Diggs is pretending not to understand the argument afoot, it is proper to use his personal situation to drive the point home.
Michael, when you entered the illicit, adulterous sexual relation with the lady in question, you created a mutual contract with the lady. So, even though you have exercised your so-called inalienable right to walk away from the sour relationship with the lady, you are bound by the product of the contract, which is your love child. Hence your obligation to pay child support – an obligation you’ve despicably neglected. No lawyer worth the salt would engage in such an ungodly and wicked act. If not for the empty bluff, where do you draw your authority to offer free tutorial on contract law when you cannot even practice same in your private life?
4. Framework Agreement “lacks consideration” – Michael is obviously out of his wailing depth here. He feebly argues that the Framework Agreement of the CPP cannot be considered a contract because it lacks consideration. Really, Michael? Need I remind you that the Framework Agreement provided the parties the political platform to win massively in the 2020 Midterm elections which saw Brownie Samukai and Prince Moye of the Unity Party elected in Lofa and Bong Counties, one of whom continues to sit as a Liberian Senator?
Need I remind you that the CPP Framework Agreement provided for the UP to take over leadership of the group on October 15, 2021 so that its Chairman became Chairman of the Executive Committee, the UP Secretary-General became the Secretary-General of the CPP, the UP headquarters became the headquarters of the CPP and its Standard Bearer became the leader of the CPP, conferring upon the moribund UP increased public acclaim as well as political attention, interest and recognition, both at home and abroad? Even the UP will not argue that it accrued political benefits and consideration from its membership in the CPP. Having duly benefited from a contract, a contracting party is estopped from summarily disassociating, unless the reasons for its claim to disassociation is provided for legally, or is consistent with the rules of disengagements established by the association itself. This is the issue, Michael without which associations will be meaningless and society will be lawless.
5. “The law cannot force any party who signs a contract if that party refuses to perform as per the terms and conditions of said contract.” – I hope Michael is not advocating for lawlessness in society. Enforcements of legal contractual obligations are at the cornerstone of lawfulness in society. This is specifically why Article 25 sits as a Fundamental Right in the Liberian Constitution. Of course, the law will seek to have legal obligations of contracts enforced on parties, or have them punished for their unwillingness or failures to do so without justifiable cause. Here, again, Micheal displays juvenile understanding of the law. Admittedly, there are grounds on which a party may not be compelled to enforce a contract but none of such grounds include the willy-nilly refusal of the party!
6. “[W]hat do you think would have been the outcome of the CPP’s Convention, if the other constituent parties had discovered the existence of this “exit clause” during or after said convention…” – Here, intellectually-dishonest Michael tries to justify his “dishonorable” claim against Cummings for seeking the intervention pf the National Elections Commission (NEC) while justifying the political persecution of Cummings by the Weah-led government, Urey, Boakai and Nyonblee on the trumped-up charges of “forgery and criminal conspiracy” which has been ongoing at the Magisterial Court of Monrovia for more than 5 months. No wonder, Samuel Tweah and the Ministry of Finance are always fumbling and in trouble – they have Michael for a lawyer!
Evidently, as a paid agent of the Liberian Government, Michael cannot bring himself to distinguish between an allegation which is yet to be proved over 5 months because he desperately wishes to help Oldman Boakai, and not Cummings, face-off against his overall bossman, the corrupt and failed President Weah, in the 2023 contest. But this line of argument is unhelpful to Boakai. Micheal inauspiciously implies that Boakai and the UP are easily maneuverable so that they either do not read what they append their signatures to, or are such imbeciles that for nearly 2 years they opted to go along with and positioned themselves to benefit from the CPP Framework Agreement, they knew to be wrong or “fraudulent”!
What leader would “discover” the content of an agreement to which they are a part only during or after a convention? Is such a character worthy of leadership of a nation?
What does it say of the leadership of Boakai that the CPP was registered and certificated by the NEC on August 14, 2020 with the same Framework Agreement they now claim not to be what they signed? What does it say of the leadership of Boakai that on October 15, 2021, he assumed the leadership of the CPP on account of the same Framework Agreement filed at the NEC? What does it say that Boakai and his UP publicly advocated for block voting more than a year into the existence of the CPP, the failure of which saw them summarily leave the CPP, or at least announced their intentions to do so? For those who are blowing wind that “Cummings hid the Framework Agreement for Boakai”; did he hide it at the NEC, the public repository for such public documents? Frankly, the ongoing trial at the magisterial court is not just despicable but deeply revealing of how inept and unqualified for leadership Boakai and Weah are given their unholy marriage against Cummings!
No wonder, Michael and his bosses in the Liberian Government are desperately supporting Oldman Boakai to head the opposition against Weah. They know that the octogenarian Boakai is past his best years in political leadership, and will be easily exploited for a Weah reelection.
Michael, you should be ashamed of yourself for spewing out such garbage in defense of the indefensible. I urge you again, do better next time!
Comments are closed.