Those who expected high drama from the court filings of Kema Dawson and Jamie Mayo were disappointed Thursday morning as the two sides mutually agreed to stay away from each other leaving the details of the political “who-done-it” still a mystery.
In a surprising turn of events, Kema Dawson, who represents District 5 on the city council, and former mayor Jamie Mayo reached a mutual agreement on Thursday to avoid contact with each other, leaving the intricate details of their political dispute unresolved.
The consensus, confirmed by hearing officer Lisa Trammel Sullivan, came ten days before the March 23 elections, casting a shadow of mystery over the political landscape. Although Dawson is not a candidate for mayor, Mayo accuses her of setting up the “fake” abuse claim on behalf of Mayor Friday Ellis.
The two agreed to stay 250 yards away from each other for two years. It’s an awkward agreement because if Mayo successfully wins election is Mayo and Dawson is a councilperson, it will be logistically impossible for either of them to stay 250 yards away from each other as city officials. The two live in the same King Oaks neighborhood, 880 yards apart.
Each one claims the other set up the alleged incident. To bolster her claim, Dawson filed for a protective order, and Mayo did the same. Mayo began appearing in public in a wrap for the “injury” Dawson was alleged to have inflicted on him.
Since both have incendiary personalities and both have been accused of bullying others in the past, their politics-drenched complaints attract public attention.
The legal skirmish stemmed from a complaint filed by Dawson on February 26 seeking a protective order against former mayor Mayo for alleged threats he made against Dawson.
The complaint followed a contentious encounter at the Benoit Recreation Center after a political forum organized by the Divine 9, a coalition of black fraternities and sororities, on February 22, 2024.
According to Dawson’s account, she approached Mayo to address and potentially resolve their longstanding differences. However, she claims the encounter quickly devolved, with Mayo allegedly becoming aggressive, leading to Mayo putting his finger in her face, followed by a physical altercation in which she said Mayo grabbed her wrist in response to her defensive gestures.
Mayo, on the other hand, says that it was Dawson who, after interrupting his conversation with Wilson, escalated the confrontation with baseless accusations regarding her ouster from CAP and a recall petition filed against her. Mayo described the moment: “As Dawson’s rhetoric heated up, she began pointing her finger in my face so close that it almost touched my nose. I asked her to move her finger out of my face, and she refused. In response, I pushed her finger away, and she caught my arm in some kind of hold and twisted it…She said she and her husband were going to beat my ass,” Mayo said.
Thursday’s hearing, initially poised to delve into the allegations, took a different path as both parties agreed to stay away from each other. By agreeing to Dawson’s offer, Mayo relieved her of having to prove her accusations in court.
The complaints were handled in a division of the court that deals with family, domestic, and protective orders, rather than a trial before a 4th District judge. As a result, the case was resolved without a clear determination of the events, leaving the public to speculate based on the narratives promoted by the surrogates of Dawson and Mayo.
On Thursday, onlookers who attended the hearing waited to hear the testimony that would be provided by two possible witnesses: Kenneth Wilson, a former city council member, whose witness account in the media is that Dawson caused the conflict and was the aggressor,. A second person who told the Ouachita Citizen newspaper that he was a witness was Christopher Lewis, a West Monroe businessman. Lewis, a convicted felon, told the Citizen that it was Mayo who made threats to Dawson, pointed his finger in her face and grabbed her arm.
However, none of the parties that were associated with the incident confirm that Lewis was present when the incident occurred and could not have been a witness.
Onlookers expected that Lewis might have been called as a witness, especially in lieu of the reports he gave to the Ouachita Citizen purporting to be an eyewitness.
The ruling, and lack of a hearing, has left the community in limbo, with each party’s supporters likely to continue advocating their version of the incident.
The absence of a trial or hearing means that the true nature of the February altercation remains shrouded in mystery, with the political implications of the dispute continuing to unfold as the elections draw near.
As Monroe heads to the polls, the unresolved conflict between Dawson and Mayo adds an element of intrigue to an already contentious election season, leaving voters to ponder the implications of the drama on their choices at the ballot box.
