The judge for criminal court ‘A’ Roosevelt Z. Willie on today, July 4, 2023 denied Liberia’s former Chief Justice, Cllr. Gloria Musu Scott and three of her family members the Motion to admit to Bail.
However, this latest decision by judge Willie came at the time former Chief Justice Scott and her family members have already spent 10 nights at the Monrovia Central Prison in Monrovia.
Cllr. Scoot and her three family memebrs are being held for murder and awaiting Court trail over their alleged involvement into the mysterious death of her niece, Charlotte Musu at her residence in Brewerville.
See ruling below:
THE MOTION TO ADMIT TO BAIL
Ruling :
On personal recognizance because she is a former Chief Justice, former Senator and who has held many positions in this Country and is a State’s woman. As earlier stated, Defendants relied upon several laws which according to them placed former Defendants who committed Murder or similar crime on Bail and therefore this Court will not be in error if it did similar thing.
The Prosecution in resistance and further argument and the Motion for Bail as filed by the Movants/Defendants told the Court to deny the Motion for Bail for tie Defendants and they also relied upon the Constitution
Article 21(d)(i) says that
while it is true that all crimes should be billable, there is a prepositional clause which says that “unless the crime being charged against the Defendant or the accuse is grave or Capital” then that accuse personal should not be bail; moreover according to Prosecution, this portion of the Constitution applies to Cllr. Gloria Musu-Scott as well in respective of her former and present statues.
The Court having listened to the arguments as put forth by the parties will ask a single question. Are these Defendants entitled to Bail? As stated earlier, the principal argument of the Movants/Defendants for which they are entitled to Bail is that the indictment did not substantively charged the Defendants or charged the person who committed the Crime of Murder and therefore prove is not evidence and presumption is not great.
The other question is, is that statement true that the indictment did not charged the Defendants or person who committed the crime of Murder? The answer is no, because the indietment named those who committed the crime of Murder as Gloria Musu Scott, Getrude Newton, Alice Johnson and Rebecca Youdeh Wisner so the indietment named who committed murder.
This proceeding we are in is not the place to prove who actually committed that murder or how it was committed because that burden is on the Prosecution.
While it is true that when the indictment has been presented to the Defendants to proves that is on the Defendants, all Prosecution can do here is to debunk that statement and therefore the proper time will come for Prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt how these Defendants committed the crime of Murder.
The other question that we asked earlier is are these Defendant entitled to Bail, we go back to the 1986 constitution, the organic law of the land, Article 21(d)() states “all accused persons shall be billable upon their personal recognizance or by sufficient sureties depending on the gravity of the crime unless crimes of capital offenses or grave offenses as defined by law”.
That unless has a foundation and that foundation is if you are charged with a capital offense or a grave offense, you are not entitled to Bail. The other issue raised by the Movants/Defendants says that ClIr. Gloria Musu-Scott is a State’s woman who has served in many capacities in this country.
True, but what does the law says, the law says all persons, the law did not distinguish as to who should be bailed when they commit grave or capital offense.
WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, the Motion to admit to Bail is hereby denied and prove beyond all reasonable doubt as required by our law will be shown when this case is assigned where the Prosecution will be ordered to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of the Defendants. AND IT IS HEREBY SO ORDERED.
To which ruling of Your Honor, one of Counsels for the Movants/Defendants gives notice that it excepts and it will take advantage of the statute controlling.
