“I have Done Nothing Unethical” -Gongloe Reacts To Supreme Court opinion

MONROVIA – The Standard Bearer of the Liberian People’s Party(LPP), Cllr. Tiawan Saye Gongloe has sharply reacted to the opinion of the Supreme Court of Liberia in the  Amos Brosius versus Judge Eva Mappy Morgan case, holding that his lawyers, including Cllr. Gongloe, Cllrs. Necular Edwards, Nyanati Tuan, Momolu Kandakai and Viama Blama should be cited by the Grievance and Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court of Liberia for investigation for what appears to be an unprofessional conduct in the representation of their client in the case: MOTC v. Amos Brosius, petition for accounting, and maintain his stand that he has done nothing unethical to warrant him being cited for investigation.

In a press statement issued yesterday, Wednesday, October 19, 2022 the former President of the Liberia National Bar Association (LNBA) said Since this opinion was delivered by the Supreme Court and carried in the newspapers, his phone has been inundated with calls from many persons in Liberia, including members of my party, amongst others, inquiring about this information. He stated that although he was awaiting a citation from the Grievance and Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court, “I feel duty-bound to the public to provide clarity on the issue, given my current position as standard bearer of the Liberian People’s Party (LPP)”.

“Let me clearly say to the public that I have done nothing unethical in representing Amos Brosius in the case: MOTC v. Amos Brosius, petition for accounting, that is still pending before the Commercial Court. In the Supreme Court’s opinion that I am reacting to, the Court did not point to any act on my part that supported its conclusion that I should be cited by the Grievance and Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court to be investigated for unprofessional conduct”

“The language used by the court is speculative in nature about whether or not our client was well-represented. Here is what the Court said, “…suffice to say that his team of lawyers…were not informing him of decisions taken in this case at every pretrial conference; if that had been the case, he would not have filed a complaint to hold the Chief Judge to ethical misconduct…” The court further held, “This seemingly neglect of duty by the lawyers is concerning, therefore, the recommendation by the JIC that they be sent to the grievance and ethics Committee of the Supreme Court is hereby endorsed by this Court.”

The Presidential hopeful said the Court is saying that the lawyers representing Brosius, perhaps, probably, may be, most likely, did not inform their clients about the pre-trial conferences held in the case, speculating that if that had happened, Brosius would not have complained  Judge Eva Mappy Morgan. “In my view, the Court as the final arbiter of justice should always confine itself to the evidence before it and not speculate. This is what the court itself has said in many opinions of the Court.

“All that I want to say here is that I have done nothing unprofessional in the Amos Brosius case”, he said.

ClIr. Gongloe maintained that he does not know of anything unprofessional act that was done by any of his colleagues named in the Brosius Opinion adding that his client felt that Judge Eva Mappy Morgan conducted herself in an unprofessional manner in his case and he complained her to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the matter was sent to the Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) of the Supreme Court. It was his right under the law to do so.

He denied ever representing Amos Brosius at the JIC but rather Brosius was represented by Cllr. M. Wilkins Wright, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. He said the JIC and the former Chief Justice, His Honor Francis Saye Korkpor agreed with Mr. Brosius that his case against the Chief Judge was justified.

“One key contention of Mr. Brosius was that a letter was sent to the Chief Judge by MOTC’s lawyer to lift a freeze put on an account belonging to the parties that had been earlier frozen by the court and was unfrozen without reference to him or his lawyers. On that issue, Chief Justice Korkpor in his dissent said, ” The respondent judge should have conducted a hearing with all the parties present to determine the necessity of ‘a quick action’ as provided under judicial Cannon#23 before lifting the freeze.

“To the contrary, she acted on the letter with speed without notice to the complainant and his lawyers. It must be noted that the letter requesting that the freeze placed on the account be lifted was written on July 22, 2013; the respondent judge on the very next day, that is on July 23, 2013, granted the request without a  hearing and lifted the freeze on the account”, he said. The former Chief Justice continued, “In my view, the action of the respondent judge constitutes a clear violation of Judicial Canons 23 and 24 for which a penalty should be attached.” The former Chief Justice then concluded, “I believe that to totally vindicate the respondent judge as the majority of my colleagues have done is an error. By their decision today, my colleagues have given freedom to trial court judges to carry out ex parte proceedings not in line with Judicial Canons #23 and 24.

“But three justices of the Supreme Court, including the current Chief Justice, Her Honor Sie-a-yeneh G. Yuoh, Associate Justice Jamesetta Howard Wolokolie and Associate Justice Joseph Nagbe held a different view. Under our law, the opinion of the majority of the justices is the opinion of the Court. The majority opinion of the Court did not say what provision of the Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers, I or any of my colleagues may have violated.

“I want to conclude by saying to the public that I have not done anything unprofessional in the Amos Brosius case. I also do not know any unprofessional conduct committed by any of my colleagues that represented Mr. Brosius. Further, as I stated earlier none of the lawyers named in the opinion of the Supreme Court represented our client in his case against Chief Judge Mappy Morgan. Hence, I find it strange that because of that case, we have been sent to the Grievance and Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court of Liberia”, the human rights activist concluded.

1 Comment
  1. T.Nathaniel Tamba 111 says

    Gongloe, the language used by the Supreme Court in questioning your integrity IS NOT SPECULATIVE. No one or no institution questions a persons integrity via speculation. Gongloe, you failed to carry out your ethical conduct regarding your duty to care as required under law and the universal ethics of lawyers

    Here is what the Court said, “…suffice to say that his team of lawyers…were not informing him of decisions taken in this case at every pretrial conference; if that had been the case, he would not have filed a complaint to hold the Chief Judge to ethical misconduct…” THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING SPECULATIVE HERE, Tiawen Goongloe! THE LANGUAGE USED BY THE COURT, DESPITE ITS OBVIOUS DUE PROCESS TUNE AND TONE, IS DEFINITIVE, DIRECT AND CONFIRMATORY IN BOTH LETTER AND SPIRIT!

Comments are closed.