The government’s lawyers have threatened to file a writ of certiorari against Judge of Criminal Court “C”, A. Blamo Dixon for failure to hear their notice of exception.
On Wednesday, October 9,2024, the court declined to hear the separate exceptions to the defendants’ criminal appearance bonds and the separate motions for Justifications of Sureties.
Montserrado County Attorney, Richard Scott, said why judge Dixon did not refuse to sign the bond since he claimed that the case was not docketed for the August term of court?
He therefore excepted to the judge’s ruling; promising to take advantage of the laws controlling.
According to Judge Dixon, the rationale is that the case involving defendant Samuel Tweah and the other co- defendants herein above named is not docketed for the August Term of Court.
He said the case is not on the docket for the August Term of Court and therefore, it is worthy to note that the said case was transferred from Criminal Court “A” to the Criminal Court “C” on September 6, 2024, same being the 22nd day of Jury Sitting, about one month ago but prosecution and the defense team failed to file a motion to advance the case on the docket for the August Term.
Therefore, the case is not docketed for the August Term of Court, A. D. 2024 and to sum it up, the August Term of Court, A. D. 2024 closed for transaction of business on September 30, 2024; same being the 42nd day of Jury Sitting, the judge added.
That is to say, the Judge is out of term time or his assignment to preside over the Criminal Court “C” had expired, pending new assignment from the Chief Justice.
The closing chambers’ session of the court which is only for 10 days commenced on Tuesday, October 1, 2024.
The court has already exhausted eight days remaining two days to close the closing chambers’ session of the court and the entire August Term of Court.
The stage that the case is on now does not fall in the category of cases that require an appeal to the Chief Justice for an extension of time because the case is new now and so the indictment was drawn up on September 5, 2024 by the grand jury of Montserrado County sitting in its August Term.
The court is poised to have the case docketed for the November Term of Court, in the absence of the motion to advance the said case on the docket for the August Term while the filing of such motion is late and moot.
The November Term of Court shall commence on November 11, 2024 so the clerk of court was ordered to have the said case docketed for the said term.
The clerk of court is also ordered to issue a ‘Notice of Assignment’ for the hearing of prosecution’s separate exceptions to the defendants’ criminal appearance bonds and the separate motions for ‘Justifications of Sureties’ filed on behalf of the defendants.
Therefore, the court is indisposed to hear the said exceptions and its adjuncts.
The court shall commence the said hearing on November 12, 2024 while the prosecution is ordered to disclose and surrender to the ‘defense team’ all species of evidence and instruments that the prosecution intends to use against the defendants, during the trial.
Defendants Tweah, Nyanti Tuan, D. Moses P. Cooper, Ford and Karmoh, were all present in court.
The defendants have been indicted by the government for the alleged crimes of ‘economic sabotage,’ misuse of public money, property or theft and illegal disbursement and expenditure of public money, theft of property and criminal facilitation and criminal conspiracy.
Lawyers representing the government headed by its Solicitor General Augustine Fayiah and Montserrado County Attorney Scott, have threatened to file a writ of certiorari against Criminal Court “C Judge Dixon, for declining to hear their notice of exceptions to defendant Tweah’s 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”, 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.
It further avered that the criminal appearance bond filed by co-defendant Tweah to the tone of eight million United States dollars 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, it 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.
Wherefore and in view of the foregoing, plaintiff most respectively prays your Honor and this Honorable court to set aside co-defendant Tweah’s criminal appearance bond and order him rearrested and place him 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.
Movant informed the court that he resists plaintiff’s exceptions to the criminal appearance bond.
He moved 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 defendant Tweah’s 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.
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 of 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.
