The Ministry of Justice has delayed the hearing of prosecution’s exceptions to defendant’s separate criminal appearance bond.
During the hearing of the defendant’s separate motions for justification of sureties, the government through the Justice Ministry requested Criminal Court “C” to defer the said hearings to Friday November 15,2024 to enable prosecution attend a Habeas Corpus motion before Criminal Court “A.”
While, the public awaits the hearing of prosecution’s separate exceptions to defendant’s criminal appearance bond and the hearing of defendant’s separate motions for Justification of sureties on Thursday, November 14, 2024, at Criminal Court “C” said hearing has been deferred.
A communication sent to Criminal Court “C” reads, “The Ministry of Justice by and thru the County Attorney of Montserrado County acknowledged receipt of the notice of assignment in the above case for Thursday November 14,2024 at 2pm.”
“However, I wish to inform your Honor and this Honorable court that prosecution is scheduled to appear before his Honor Roosevelt Z. Willie, Resident Circuit Court Judge Criminal Court “A” on November 14,2024, in a writ of Habeas corpus,” the prosecution informed the court.
Therefore, prosecution requested the criminal appearance bond hearing to be re-scheduled as an assignment for Friday November 15, 2024 at the same time.
After declining to earlier hear prosecution exceptions to defendant’s separate criminal appearance bond filed against the US$8 million criminal appearance bond filed by defendant Samuel Tweah.
Defendant Tweah and others are indicted for the crimes of Economic sabotage, fraud on the internal revenue of Liberia, misuse of public money (property, record),theft and illegal distribution and expenditures of public money, theft of property, money laundering, criminal facilitation and criminal conspiracy.
On October 9,2024, Criminal Court “C Judge A. Blamo Dixon declined to hear the separate exceptions to the defendants’ Criminal Appearance Bonds and the separate motions for justifications of sureties but government lawyers threatened to file a writ of certiorari against him after failing to hear their notice of exception.
However, lawyers representing the government headed by Solicitor General Augustine Fayiah and Montserrado County Attorney Richard Scott have threatened to file a writ of certiorari against Criminal Court ‘C’s Resident Judge A. Blamo Dixon for declining to hear their notice of exceptions to defendant’s Tweah criminal appearance bond.
According to their notice of exceptions, co-defendant Tweah posed a property as a criminal appearance bond whose attachments indicate two separate properties identification numbers (PIDs) 33933 and 25115; an anomaly concerning property identification.
“Your Honor is required to take judicial notice of property identification contained in the statement of property valuation and that contained in Real Estate tax demand notice and Real Estate tax division’s statement of property valuation” purportedly owned by Randolph S. Cole and Refina J. Cole attached to the subject criminal appearance of the defendant.
That state further contended that as per reports from the Liberia Revenue Authority, there is no record in the system to indicate the owners of the property with property identification number 25115 posed to secure the release of the defendants, neither is there an assessment of the value of the purported property in the system as is required by law.
Further, to count above, the Liberia Revenue Authority records revealed that the property with identification number 33933 has a tax liability or lien of US$23,737.80 and therefore does not qualify under our law to be used as a bond.
The plaintiff (Ministry of Justice/LACC) in addressing the above counts contained in its exceptions, incorporates the said counts in its exception to defendants’ criminal bond and asserts that assuming for argument sake that the property posed as criminal appearance bond existed in the system and did not have a lien exempting it from usage for said purpose because the crimes with which defendants are charged present the possibility of a restitution order where the defendants to be adjudged guilty, it would still not meet the requirement of law since the bond ought to be twice the amount embezzled in addition to the maximum number of months of imprisonment multiply by twenty five dollars.
“That restitution is a fundamental requirement under our law”, adding, “Where the defendant unlawfully deprives the plaintiff state or private prosecutor of its lawful property as in this case” the state further maintained.
Movant/ plaintiff submits that where restitution is to be made and the amount or value that the bond is less than the statutory amount to be restituted plus the period of the sentence imprisonment same should and must be denied and dismissed for insufficiency.
Its further avers that the criminal appearance bond filed by co-defendant Tweah’s US$ 8 million is latently insufficient because the surety has no adequate amount to cover the bond.
The plaintiff’s exception to co-defendant, Tweah’s criminal appearance bond is a requirement under the law of the Republic of Liberia that bond must be sufficient to cover the obligations undertaken in the bond, exclusive of other bonds to which it is already serving as surety, commensurate with the amount stated in the bond.
However, the obligors under co-defendant Tweah’s criminal appearance bond are the same as those under co-defendant Stanley Ford’s criminal appearance bond which was earlier filed; a situation which unequivocally demonstrates that the bond of co-defendant Tweah is wholesomely defective and untenable.
That our statutory and decisional laws provide that the court shall approve a bail bond and release the defendant if prima facie showing is made that the sureties are qualified or that the security offered on the bond is adequate and genuine as represented by the defendant.
Movant/plaintiff submits and avers that co-defendant Tweah’s surety has not provided an adequate bond.
The bond shall crumble and be thrown out and the co-defendant Tweah be incarcerated until the appropriate criminal appearance bond is filed.
The plaintiff prayed the court to set aside co-defendant’s criminal appearance bond and order him rearrested and placed in a common jail until and unless a valid criminal appearance bond reflecting the gravity of the offense with which commission he is charged is posed and grant unto the plaintiff any other relief deemed just, legal and equitable.
While lawyers representing defendant Tweah asked the court to ignore and dismiss the plaintiff exception to movant/defendant criminal appearance bond challenging the sufficiency, capacity, adequate and validity of the said criminal appearance bond and prayed court to declare same criminal appearance bond valid for the following reasons to writ:
The movant informed the court that he resists plaintiff’s exceptions to the criminal appearance bond.
He prayed the court that movant requests your honor to grant movant’s motion to justify because movant’s surety is sufficient, qualified and correct under the laws of Liberia and consistent with the criminal procedure practice in this country.
According to defendant Tweah lawyers, the constitution of Liberia mandates that there shall be no excessive bond or unreasonable amount for the bond that shall make it difficult for the person to obtain a criminal appearance bond in this Republic.
Also, the law provides that in criminal proceedings, the principle of presumption of innocence “is fundamental under our criminal jurisprudence and when criminal appearance conditions are so unreasonable and difficult for denying and incapacitating the defendant from obtaining a bond such action is a violation of the principle of presumption innocence until the contrary is proven.”
This being the case, the assertion of the plaintiff to pose a bond in an amount so excessive and unreasonable requested to deny and dismiss the plaintiff’s exception.
