Court Fines Lonestar Cell

As the plaintiffs in the trial involving the four dead Maritime cadets get prepared to rest with evidences and witnesses’ testimonies, the Lonestar Cell MTN has been slapped with a US$100 fine for contempt of court.

After listening to the subpoena writ of arrest issued the company after its failure to adhere to the court’s request to present a document to aid the ongoing trial, the trial judge, Boima Kontoe said the defense lawyers presented no adequate justification in their argument.

He said the defense plea to trash the contempt charge hanging over the Lonestar Cell MTN could not lie because the company showed no remorse for its action by entering a ‘not guilty’ plea against the said Writ adding that the law provides that contempt charge can only be purged if the defendant appeals for mercy knowing that it disrespected the court.

Judge Kontoe said the justification from the defense that their client received the court’s request to appear in court less than 48 hours and that the court should give the company time to put together its document should have been done during its first appearance instead of staying away and ignoring the court.

He attributed the refusal of the Lonestar Cell MTN management to appear willingly in court as an outrageous attitude on their part and to that he mandated that the fine of US$100 be paid into the government revenue with flag receipt present at the call of the trial today at 2 p.m.

Meanwhile, the empanelled jury will today visit the Samuel K. Doe Sports Complex where the training was carried out for the cadets as the first phase of the training exercises and later they will be taken to the Musa’s Beach where they took their swimming lessons and were alleged to have drowned on September 27, 2012.

At the end of the plaintiffs’ seventh witness, Pate Chon on Tuesday, the court requested that the Lonestar Cell MTN management appear with its call log of September 27 while the St. Moses Funeral Parlor authority also appear to provide clarity to some of the allegations made during some witnesses’ testimonies.

Plaintiff might rest with evidences provided that the court and jury are clear on certain issues raised by the party litigants while the witnesses were testifying; the trial continues. C. Winnie Saywah writes.

Comments

comments