The Women Political Movement of Liberia and ECOWAS Women for Peace have declared their support to what they call sound opinion handed down by the Supreme Court in the Milad R. Hage case.
In a statement signed by Cecelia Siaway Teah, President, Women Political Movement of Liberia, and Oretha Dennis, President, ECOWAS Women for Peace, they lauded Justices Philip AZ Banks and Francis S. Korkpor. But they have asked Justices Kabineh M. Janeh and Jamesetta Howard Wolokollie to step aside and stop their interference into the case and other cases concerning the estate of the Late Milad R. Hage in order to allow peace to prevail between the executor of the Estate and the children of the deceased.
They went on to prevail on ECOBANK Liberia to “stop funding her smear campaign against the Executor Mr. Bassam H. Jawhary.”
The women accused ECOBANK Liberia of being an obstacle in the case: Oumou vs. Bassam Jawhary (with over 90 law suits being instituted against the Executor by Oumou Sirleaf.)
“Additionally, Tony Hage has been the main obstacle in the Milad R. Hage Estate battle and all other problems that have derived from this case because the Executor has refused to sell the late Milad Hage Will to Tony Hage, and that is the reason the children of the late Milad R. Hage have been suffering. We the Women Political Movement of Liberia and ECOWAS Women for Peace have concluded that Tony Hage must stop all his interferences into this case/matter to allow peace to prevail and to also allow the children to return to their father’s Will and get on with their lives and become useful people in the society,” the women declared.
According to the women, the Will of the late Milad R. Hage is in the best interest of the children and their mother and that it must stand, as in the cases of the late Hilton Van E, William VS Tubman and JJ Roberts.
They argued that the Wills of fathers, husbands and mothers are their last wishes, which must not be subjected to tampling by anyone.
Having listened to all arguments, and having taken into consideration the law citations relied upon by both parties, the court believes that it has the legal authority to overturn or reverse its earlier decision out of term time, that is, whether or not a decision made in 2010 can be reversed out of term time in 2011.
According to the court, the Will in question reverses no real property to anyone but rather allocates one to his children and to widow monies generated from the said leasehold.
The Will provides that US$50,000.00 goes to his widow and all his four Liberian children, US$50,000.00 each; and his Lebanese children, Ellie M. Hage, Tony M. Hage, are entitled to US$24,000.00 each, while Terrez G. Safi and Lor C. Azar, US$12,000.00, all to be paid from the net income and portion of the said principal at any time, and from time to time for education, health, support, comfort, and welfare of the Lebanese children residing in Lebanon and America, yearly from the net income accumulated from the estate by the trustee.
The court mentioned that nowhere in his Will was a piece of property willed to anyone.
The court believes that what movants actually intend is to cleverly have the court set aside and cancels the said Will. The court said it lacks the authority to do so.
