Atty. Isaac Jackson’s petition for a prohibition on his removal as Liberia’s Permanent Representative to the International Maritime Organization (IOM), has been denied by the Supreme Court of Liberia.
The court is the highest decision body in Liberia and their decision means Mr. Jackson cannot serve in such position.
The September 4th opinion by the court revails that the Liberian leader George M. Weah was correct and have the authority to remove Mr. Jackson.
Explaining the Maritime Act of 2010, the Supreme Court said, tenure of five years to the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Liberia Maritime Organization (IMO) is not a Deputy Commissioner; the occupant of that position holds the status of a diplomat who may be recalled or removed by the will of the President of Liberia therefore, Jackson who was appointed permanent representative to the IMO is not entitled to tenure.
Shockingly, the Supreme Court has with immediate effect suspended Atty. Jackson from the practice of law for a year.
The court said Att. Jackson has been very rude and raining insults on the Chief Justice during the course of the hearing.
Mr. Jackson was also asked to render an apology to that body and publish three times in two local dailies with in three months his apologies.
If he fails, the Supreme Court said, Atty. Jackson would risk permanent disbarment.
On his social media page, Att. Isaac Jackson posted this.
“Through various broadcasts and reports, it has come to my attention that the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia has handed down its Opinion, unfavorably to me, in my legal contest of my dismissal and denial of passport by the Liberian Executive. This matter has been a long and exhausting battle spanning two years.
I am also being made to understand that growing out of the same litigation, the court has sanctioned me from the practice of law in the country for a period of a year.
On its face, it appears that not only has the court denied my cause, but also, it has effectively denied me an alternative form of livelihood without the benefit of a hearing – an apparent violation of the principles of natural justice.
Obviously, my family and I are disappointed, and feel unfairly treated. But such is life.
I have requested my lawyers to be served a copy of the Opinion of the Honorable Supreme Court to which I am justly entitled. This will enable an informed guidance of my next course of action.”
Details are emerging…