In the wake of a leaked report in a case filed against Judge Eva Mappy Morgan in which she was said to have been vindicated, the complainant Mr. Amos Brosius has fired back to say that the report is contrary to the true picture of the case.
Speaking to reporters through his lawyers, Mr. Brosius said he was taken aback that such story of a leaked report came out at the time when a report of such should be made known to both parties in a litigation. He said with this development, an impression has been given that there are two reports for the same case and it is expedient that the Supreme Court state which of the reports vindicates Judge Eva Mappy Morgan.
Mr. Brosius said in the first place, Judge Morgan lacked the jurisdiction to have presided over the case and as such it gave the genesis of how the case was handled under her jurisdiction.
“As Circuit Court Judge appointed, confirmed by the Liberian Senate and Commissioned by the President, while exercising her official duty deliberately chose to assume jurisdiction over a matter that she does not have as provided by status”, he said.
Mr. Brosius said he was baffled by the purported decision of Justice Yousuf Kaba to have disowned his own input of the report of the Judicial Inquiry Committee which included other 6 panellists.
“While exercising her official duty that adversary affects a party that again Justice Kaba attempts to dilute the majority opinion of the Judiciary Inquiry Commission or JIC, call those illegal action private? It is fathom that Associate Justice Kaba calibre would Judge Eva Mappy-Morgan that he alone can overturn the 7 April, 2021, JIC report that was signed by majority members of the commission including himself”, Mr. Brosius said
In the May 10, 2021 leaked communication under the signature of Justice Yousuf Kaba, and addressed to Chief Justice Francis Korkpor, the report came up with a three points with the being that it “did not find that Judge Eva Mappy Morgan directly or indirectly withdrew funds from any account that was the subject of the litigation before her”.
On the second note, the letter said that the commission finds that judgment action of granting an ex parte order based upon the request of one of the parties in the case before her without information and or notice to the other party, in the face of the understanding reached by the parties was in violation of canon 23 of the Judicial Canons of Moral and Professional conduct of judges.
This is what got to Mr. Brosius who reasoned that for someone to have violated some of the canons for judges and said violation be termed as “private” does not make sense in the true sense of all. Mr. Brosius said with this it does not sit well to say Judge Morgan was vindicated.