Supreme Court Justice Johnson, STAY Away From The Bryant Case

By Gbe Sneh

The Perspective
Atlanta, Georgia
March 28, 2007


When Bryant was sworn in as the interim Chairman of the NTGL and he delivered his inaugural speech under the theme, “There Will Be No Business As Usual.” some, including this writer breathed a sigh of relief, however be it with skepticism in some quarters. We placed our scarce resources in this man’s care to lead us through the transition. Now, look at what he did instead.

Not only did Bryant not do anything to stop others from looting public funds, he greedily indulged in it himself. There we were, feeling sorry for this man for having curtailed powers, given a government makeup of warlords and booty takers commissioned for the sake of peace.

Today, Bryant admits to some phantom spending which he describes as National Security Spending, and hence, is under no obligation to divulge the nature of such expenditures.

What national security would be compromised in a detailed reporting of how the people’s scarce funds were spent? The title was “Chairman“, and that by definition, implicitly did not grant Mr. Bryant unilateral powers on National Security decisions. A chairman’s actions come at the heels of consultations with the governing body, in this case, the National Transitional Legislative Assembly (NTLA). The question then is, did Mr. Bryant seek the approval of the NTLA for the phantom security spending?

As the transitional period coursed through special times, all security matters, almost exclusively, was entrusted to UNMIL. Did Mr. Bryant get any input from the nation’s then only security apparatus before spending these huge sums on “security“?

When Mr. Bryant spent nearly half a million dollars on an armored vehicle to shield him from Waterside tomato and egg throwers, at least, we saw what the money paid for, however bloated the price and inconsiderate the move. He had full UNMIL protection, and we know half a million dollars could have bought much needed goods and services for reconstruction.

That’s enough beating around the bush! Let’s get down to what we know about Mr. Bryant. Those who know him say that, for a huge man, he speaks with a “soft voice”, as in “The Gift Of Gap.” That is, he is slick. Okra! That explains how he ascended to the interim Chairmanship amid stiff competition. Really, had it not been for the ECOWAS Audit, this man would have us fooled.

Bryant is a “Zero Error” wise guy. That’s the kind of guy who admits to misappropriating funds, but attempts to mitigate the crime by striking out a zero in the amount in question. A $200,000 theft becomes $20,000., a whopping difference of $180,000. Very clever!

The current indictment against Bryant is just round one. He is also implicated in the Snowe, Jr. LPRC fraud case. A possible concurrent prison time lies ahead of this man, and we pray that the judicial system delivers.

Having said all this, we pray on the Court to back-off its scheduled defense petition hearing. The stay of prosecution ordered by the Supreme Court defies reasoning. If the summary of the petition filed by the Bryant defense, as outlined in the News article dated March 26, 2006, is correct, may the Court tell us what is contained therein that warrants a stay.

Let’s take a look at some of the points in the petition. ECOWAS’ acknowledgement of the “extraordinary circumstances” of the transition period is not an exculpation. That Bryant called in ECOWAS to conduct an audit amid a public outcry of wide-spread corruption does not shield him from any findings linking him. The call was simply Bryant’s way of saying, “Prove It If You Can.” And, of course, the audit proved that he made questionable expenditures. That’s why he has been indicted.

The Bryant defense’s citing of the July 2004 ECOWAS Summit to address NTLA’s complaints that Bryant was taking actions without consulting the body is a self inflicted wound. The ammo this gives the prosecution is simply put in the following question. Why was Bryant making unilateral decisions? His title was “Chairman”!

ECOWAS said “Thank you, Chairman Bryant, for carrying out our mandate.” What makes this a reason not to prosecute Bryant for economic crimes against the people?

What does an apple have to do with an orange; you smile in my face, but you stab me in the back. What’s in that for the Supreme Court to spend our precious time on?

Another ridiculous point in the petition states that “…the audit report was not presented to him prior to his leaving office for his review and action.” What action? Show me where and when a criminal indicted and prosecuted himself. What does a copy in Bryant’s possession have to do with the contents of the audit report? Oh, he would breathe on it and the findings contained therein would change in his favor, ala sumu ya ya. Don’t tell me the Court is buying this!

Your honor, Justice Johnson, please, please, allow Bryant to defend himself against the charges; allow the people to have justice. We ask you to STAY away!

© 2007 by The Perspective

To Submit article for publication, go to the following URL: