A Liberian businessman, Amos Brosius has again suffered another setback from the country’s judiciary system after being denied a Bill of Information filed by his legal team by the Commercial Court, demanding the Court to allow the Liberia Bank for Development and Investment, LBDI state the amount in the frozen account.
It can be recalled, Amos Brosius filed a bill of information, dated August 9, 2021 which was intended for the court to write the management of the bank to provide him with the current status of the account.
Instead, the court decided to invite the parties for the ruling on the bill of information without any authorization to the bank to provide the statement as was early requested by Brosius.
Brosius, after requiring the court, noted that he will hold the Judiciary Branch of Government responsible for the disappearance of over US$3millon out of the escrow account of Ducor Petroleum Incorporated that was deposited at the Liberia Bank for Development and Investment (LBDI), which is seen as a contributing factor to his lawyers refusal to represent his legal interest in court.
In an interview on Monday September 13, 2021, Amos Brosius exerted that Judge Eva Mappy Morgan has connived with MOTC to bring the bank statement before her thus allowing her to freeze his bank account, adding that he is the sole investor in the Ducor Petroleum Incorporated.
It can also be recalled that MOTC, in 2013 filed a lawsuit for Accounting against Brosius,then general manager of Ducor Petroleum Incorporated to demand accountability for his management ship of the company’s operation.
Judge Morgan with the approval of the parties, Brosius and the MOTC opened the escrow account at LBDI where over US$3million was deposited with an agreement that the monies should remain there under the custody of the court pending the outcome of the lawsuit.
In one of the letters signed by Counsellor Momolu Kandakai of the Gongloe and Associates, he reminded the judges, “Mr Brosius for the past nine years, we have not been paid for our legal services provided him, therefore, we are not prepared to continue to represent him for further hearing into the case, until we know the status of the account.”
However, in an assertion, Brosius filed a complaint before Chief Justice Francis Korkpor, accusing Judge Morgan of unilaterally communicating with the other party, and at which time, the judge mandated the bank management to lift the freeze placed on the escrow account, though the matter was pending before judge Morgan.
Based on the MOTC’s lawyer request, Brosius claimed that Morgan wrote the bank requesting the lifting of the stay order, which decision gives MOTC and Judge Morgan the opportunity to deplete the escrow account at LBDI.
As a result of an unethical complaint filed by Brosius , Chief Justice Korkpor forwarded the matter to the Judiciary Inquiry Commission (JIC) for Investigation.
The JIC is considered as the arm of the Supreme Court that is clothed with the responsibility to deal with unethical conduct of judges.
The JIC in its investigation found Judge Morgan liable for unethical breached and recommended a year suspension without pay and benefits.
However, while the Supreme Court was still holding its judgement, judge Morgan recused herself from the hearing, therefore allowing the chief justice to appoint the Resident Judge of the Criminal Court ‘A’ Roosevelt Willie to serve as Ad Hoc Judge.
“That Mr. Amos Brosius filed a 14 counts Bill of Information out of a petition for accounting that is pending before the Commercial Court, in the preamble of the bill of information, he prayed the court to order MOTC to return the Amount of three Million three hundred United States Dollars (US $3,300,000.00) withdrawn from the Account ordered frozen by the Commercial Court.
Aforesaid, the court is of the options that when making final determination in the petition for accounting it shall be the duty of the Court to state the status of all funds, asset and liabilities of the parties concerned that were brought under the Court’s control through the various banks and or are subject of the petition for Accounting.
The Court, however, urged that consistent with the laws practice and under the jurisdiction a party represented by counsel in a proceeding is required to present all matters of interest and consent to the Court through his or her counsel and not to directly communicate with the Court.
Leave a Reply