By C. Winnie Saywah-Jimmy
Some partisans of the oldest political party in Liberia, the True Wig Party (TWP), along with their chairperson, Reginald Goodridge has responded to the respondents’ 26-count return against a Petition for Declaratory Judgment before the Civil Law Court at the Temple of Justice.
The petition named the respondents as the Government of Liberia through the Ministry of Justice, the General Services Agency and the embattled TWP Chairperson, Peter Vuku and its General Secretary, Othello Mason.
In their reply, the petitioners argued that the confiscation of private property contravenes Article 20(a) of the Liberian Constitution that forbids the arbitrary seizure of private property and also an ill-fated gamble palled in the limited understanding of the law on the part of anyone who engages in such causeless exercise.
The petitioners said the within named respondents are philandering with ideas and being quite unable to find justification for their illegal action which is nothing but a pale reflection of their blatant lack of direction in promoting multi-party democracy, rule of law and good governance.
The petitioners also argued that the elementary property law teaches that the physical and illegal confiscation of any property by force of arms absents any court process as it was in the E. J. Roye Building by the People’s Redemption Council (PRC). The petitioners described the confiscation order as a ‘transitory occupation’ and does not amount to a ‘possessory right of ownership’ and it is doubtless to note that the respondents and their collaborators did not know that no title was passed to a third party, no sale was made and no deed transferred therefore the TWP remains the undisputed and legitimate owner of the E. J. Roye Building as a matter of elementary property law.
In their 41-count reply to the respondents’ return, the petitioners said the failure of the respondents to attach the purported Executive Order containing the alleged exception clause regarding the E. J. Roye Building should serve as a basis for the court to dismiss the entire returns of the respondents.
The petitioners who detest the illegal seizure and occupation of its property said the respondents are amazingly day-dreaming adding that to say that the TWP interposed no objection to the illegal seizure order by the respondents are absolutely groundless.
The petitioners among other things further argued that assuming that a confiscation is the proper procedure in acquiring real property, what is the legal basis for requiring the TWP of the original warranty deed for the building and if the TWP was divested of its ownership rights of the building in question, then at what time did it repossessed the title deed to the property?
They said if the confiscated order was considered ‘complete’ then what logic is it for requiring the TWP of the original titled deed to the property after almost three decades? However, they informed the court that the motive of the so-called MOU was meant to seduce certain partisans of the party, who had no authority, to secretly sell the building under the cover of darkness.
The petitioners said from August last year up until present, the party does not have a recognized leadership and the purported MOU was executed between the respondents and some partisans thereby considering the respondents as fraudsters because it can never be possible for an agreement to be entered in April 2013 giving a deadline on or before March, 2013.