Debunking Garlawulo’s Fallacies

07/23/10
Debunking Garlawulo’s Fallacies

By: Joe Bartuah

On many occasions, evidence abounds that some of our compatriots arrogantly take Liberia, our common patrimony for granted. A case in point is the writ of prohibition recently filed at the Supreme Court against the Liberia National Police (LNP) by Counselor Francis Garlawulo on behalf of Deputy Speaker Tokpah Mulbah and his cohorts. Mulbah and his horde of thugs are said have inhumanely brutalized an officer the peace, Mr. Lexington Beh of the LNP. After Mulbah and others had committed such heinous crime against the state, Francis Garlawulo shamelessly believes that Mulbah, who like Garlawulo, hails from Bong County, should be shielded from arrest by section 31 of the Legislative Law of Liberia. He therefore fallaciously claims that attempts by the police to apprehend the thuggish legislator is not only a violation of the Legislative Law of Liberia, but also article 21(b) of the Liberian Constitution.
If Liberia has had solid, continuous democracy in its 163 years of existence, there would have been no need to comment on Garlawulo’s illusionary claims; if we have consistently had elections over the years where elected officials periodically submit themselves to the ultimate verdict of the electorate, where recalcitrant and uncouth officials like Mulbah and others are kicked out of their offices through the might of the ballot box, I won’t have dignified Garlawulo’s whimsical tirade with a comment; I would have otherwise remained reticent until the case was judicially disposed of.
However, our democratic experiment is still embryonic and its relevant institutions--including the judiciary-- are yet to attain their inherent potency, hence the need for the active participation of every one of us, if we as a people, must succeed in this noble endeavor of ensuring the smooth and safe sail of our covetous democratic ship. This is highly imperative because unprincipled, misguided, anti-democratic elements in our midst are clearly bent on manipulating the democratic system to their advantage through all sorts of chicaneries. They resort to such pernicious tactics because quacks, bandits and miscreants all have something in common--they generally thrive in chaos--and some of the very people involved in this particular incident had immensely benefitted from the unprecedented carnage and savageries which plagued Liberia for over 14 years!
And so the bizarre scenario in Monrovia is that Francis Garlawulo, a former Charles Taylor Justice Minister rushes to the Supreme Court and claims that his client, Tokpah Mulbah is a peace-loving, law-abiding, innocent citizen whose fundamental rights are being violated in contravention of section 31 of the Legislative Law and article 21(b) of the Constitution and he partially quotes small portions of the laws that he feels, are favorable to his client.
In a typical Garlawulo fashion, he’s most likely to issue a self-indulging press release, scurry around the offices of multiple media outlets and cunningly seek maximum publicity so that his capricious claims would be propagated as a sort of Gospel before cruising to Mullah’s residence to get the last batch of his “30 pieces of silver”. Just imagine the impact such fabulous publicity on the layman in Liberia where “the counselor” is massively being quoted by the media as saying that the police had violated the law by trying to arrest a criminal suspect. That is one of the reasons why debunking Garlawulo’s fallacies is imperative; our people deserve formidable protection and robust defense against outright falsehood by dishonest and supercilious elements.
To begin with, article II of the 1986 Constitution says any laws, customs and practices that are inconsistent with this organic law are “void and of no legal effect”. It therefore goes without saying that aspects of section 31 of the Legislative Law which give immunity to even the “servants” of lawmakers 30 days before and 30 days after legislative session is not in consonance with the letters and spirit of the constitution and so, those parts are null and void ab initio. As noted in article II, the constitution is the supreme law of Liberia and of course, in the eyes of the constitution, we are all equal before the law. Obviously designating a certain group of people as some sorts of “untouchables” at some particular time of the year is a recipe for chaos. If such law is allowed to continue unchallenged, some elements among such category of citizens would be anxiously lurking until legislative session begins, then they’ll carry on their diabolical, heinous, felonious acts as they just did against officer Beh.
At the moment, there are about 64 Representatives and 30 Senators, making it a total of 94 legislators. I am told that each lawmaker has nine legislative aides. If my information is correct, that will be 846 persons enjoying such unprecedented immunities. Of course, the 846 persons would be the official ones; other hanger-ons, extended relatives and plethora of girlfriends and other associates might fall under the “household” and “servants” distinctions. It’s indisputable that a legislative girlfriend has every right to claim that she’s a “servant” of a legislator. As I see it, this legislative law, as interpreted by Garlawulo, is tantamount to a gross usurpation of basic democratic precepts and therefore, ought to be abrogated forthwith, or to the extent that it is utterly inconsistently with the constitution, it must be considered non-existent.
In any case, let us, for the sake of argument, consider the law as it is. What the apprenticed lawyer in Monrovia failed to acknowledge is that the relevant exceptions in both section 31 of the Legislative Law and article 21(b) of the Constitution became automatically applicable as a result of Mulbah’s devilish acts in concert with his thugs. I am not a lawyer, but as a layman, I sufficiently understand the plain, unequivocal English in which the Liberian constitution and most other laws are written.
While it is true that this self-serving Legislative Law of Liberia prohibits the arrest of any lawmaker and his household members as well as his servants, the same law unambiguously states, “except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.” In a similar fashion, article 21(b) of the constitution which provides that “search or seizure” of any person or property be carried out with court issued warrant also stipulates, “provided, however, that a search or seizure shall be permissible without a search warrant where the arresting authorities act during the commission of a crime or in hot pursuit of a person who has committed a crime.”
And so, if Francis Garlawulo doesn’t understand or has elected to ignore the stipulations of this simple jurisprudence, the case against Tokpah Mulbah is that by satanically assaulting an officer of the peace, Mulbah has effectively disrobed himself of his legislative immunity and reduced himself to a common criminal, thus rendering himself liable to arrest, detention and prosecution. Garlawulo knows very well that assault and battery is a felonious crime for which law enforcement officers have legitimate authority to search and apprehend the suspects, even without a warrant, followed by a formal charge.
Not only that by assaulting a police officer Mulbah and his accomplices breached the peace of Liberia, but he’s also a fugitive from justice by virtue of the fact that he’s still evading arrest. Being a fugitive is a tacit expression of guilt on the part of the accused.
Finally, I am not surprised that Garlawulo is rushing to the rescue of Mulbah because he and Mulbah are proverbial birds of the same feather and so, they must flock together. In the 1980s, Francis Garlawulo masqueraded the streets of Monrovia as a human rights lawyer. However, when Charles Taylor’s murderous rebel movement came wreaking havoc on peace-starved Liberians, Garlawulo surfaced in Gbarnga and became one of the staunchest ideologues of that atrocious organization. As Taylor’s Justice Minister in Monrovia in the 1990s, Garlawulo personally ordered the flogging and dragging of journalist Sando Moore on the premises of the Justice Ministry at the corner of Ashmun and Buchanan Streets And so, when he’s heard vociferously clamoring about purported constitutional violations, it’s not because he stands for any constitutional principles but because he goes for whatever pecuniary gains, regardless of the moral or legal implications.
About the author: Joe Bartuah is a Liberian journalist residing Boston, Massachusetts. He can be reached at: akesseh06@hotmail.com