7/9/2020 Hans Caperhat Williams and Mardia P.

Williams VS Republic of Liberia – Supreme Court of Liberia

Prosecution. When the said motion was made and resisted, the prosecuting attorney again
requested the court for continuance for ample time for the presence of the Minister of Justice in
court before argument on the said motion. The court, again, in total neutrality and objectivity,
granted the Prosecution’s request for continuance on the presence of the Minister of Justice when
the motion to recuse was argued and denied on the ground that it lacked any legal or factual basis…
“While it is true/a fact that this judge sometimes worked with the National Patriotic Assembly
Government, NPRAG some ten or more years prior to his elevation as judge, this judge cannot say
with certainty that co- defendant Hans Williams did work for the said NPRAG. But, granted, that the
defendant worked for the NPRAG, this does not in any way disqualify this judge for merely working
for the same organization and knowing each other causally with no intimacy.
“As to the third question, whether or not a judge has authority to accede to an application for the
disqualification when the basis therefor is not thoroughly established as provided by law, this court
must also answer the said question in the negative. It was long since established in our jurisdiction
that an application to a judge for his disqualification in a case is in effect, asking him to surrender his
jurisdiction. But unless and until the basis for his disqualification is thoroughly established in a
manner and form [as] provided by law, he is without authority to accede.
“The opinion or sentiment expressed by the Prosecution that the judge is bias because he worked
[for] NPRAG with Defendant Hans Williams has no legal basis. This court says that we are here in
this court to do law and justice and that this is what we must do. The grounds for the movant’s
motion being found[ed] on frivolous allegation without legal justification is sufficient for the
dismissal of said motion.
“WHEREFORE, and in view of the foregoing factual and legal reasons, the
movant’s motion must be and the same is hereby denied. And the case is ordered proceeded with,
with immediate effect. And so ordered.”
One week after the judge denied its motion for his recusal from the case, the Appellee, on April 9,
2009, filed a motion requesting the judge to rescind his ruling on the motion for recusal. The motion
to rescind stated, albeit differently, the same arguments made in the motion for recusal. On April
13, 2009, His Honor S. Geevon Smith denied the motion to rescind. He relied on the same grounds
upon which he denied the Appellee’s earlier motion for recusal. He said:
“The grounds for the movant’s motion for recusal are founded only on frivolous allegations
intended purposely and merely to [besmirch] the character of the judge.
“This court has no interest in any party and will never be an agent for any party.
“To rescind the ruling made on the motion for recusal is to quash justice and truth, and exalt
falsehood and fallacy. Come what may, this court will never do so on its own.
“WHEREFORE and in view of the foregoing factual and legal reasons, the motion to rescind the
ruling on the motion for recusal must be and is hereby overruled and denied. This case is hereby
ordered proceeded with, with immediate effect. AND IT IS HEREBY SO ORDERED.”
On April 3, 2009, the Appellee filed yet another petition with the Honorable Supreme Court, for
issuance of the Writ of Certiorari, requesting the Supreme Court “to reverse the Ruling of the Co-
respondent Judge and order that he should recuse himself from presiding over the case, and to
grant unto Petitioner any and all other and further relief as would be just, legal and equitable.”
Our review of the records reveals that the Supreme Court did not act on this latest petition for the
Writ of Certiorari. However, we see in the records that on April 14, 2009, Judge Smith, in an abrupt
reversal of his denial of the Appellee’s motion to rescind, recused himself from the case, stating as

comnetitsolutionsinc.org/toj/hans-caperhat-williams-and-mardia-p-williams-vs-republic-of-liberia/ 8/46