By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia–The Monrovia City Court at the Temple of Justice Stipendiary Magistrate L. Ben Barco has ruled and sustained the Bail bond filed by former speaker Jonathan Fonati Kofa and three of his fellow lawmakers who were charged in connection with the Capitol building arson attack and denied prosecution motion to the Exception of the bail bond.
he court said, the essence of their appearance is to answer to the charges against them as per the writ of arrest and that if convicted. Defendants will be surrendered to the custody of the Court to undergo the full sentence Defendants and not to indemnify them.
Moreover, the judge referenced a case as far back as the 1970s, the Honorable Supreme Court in expounding on the purpose of the right to bail in the case Theophilus Addo-Mills v. Napoleon Thorpe, 27 LLR 27,33 (1975) explained that “This traditional right to freedom before conviction permits the unhampered preparation of a defense, and serves to prevent the infliction of punishment prior to conviction.
He added that Unless this right to bail before trial is preserved, the presumption of innocence would lose its meaning”. Still further, in 1994 the Supreme Court, ruling in the case Jimmy Zuo v His Honor John N. Morris 37 LLR 604, 609 (1994) said that bail is intended to keep an accused out of jail until he is found guilty.
This practice according to judge Barco squares with our basic principles that an accused is presumed innocent until he is found guilty in accordance with the due process of law.
More to that, Defendants are all public servants occupying the positions of Honorable Representatives of the House of Representatives of the National Legislature.
He further that, This Court recognizes the fact that under the Constitution of the Republic of Liberia (1986), a person accused of a crime which is not a capital offense or a grave offense as defined by law has the right to be released on bail upon his or her own personal recognizance (See Article 21(d) (i)). Defendants being all elected Representatives, can be released upon their personal recognizance as contemplated by the 1986 Constitution.
In addition to their statuses, they have also filed a Criminal Appearance Bond guaranteed by sureties who have also appeared and justified their sufficiency and adequacy.
“This court, having established that the sureties are authorized by law to serve as sureties on a criminal appearance bond, and the bond before Court not being an indemnity bond, and coupled with the fact that Defendants are all members of the House of representatives representing different districts, the Court finds the sureties sufficient and hereby makes an appropriate endorsement of the said criminal appearance bond.”
WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, LEGAL CITATIONS AND ANALYSIS, the exception to the Criminal Appearance Bond filed by Prosecution is denied, and the motion to justify granted and Defendants are hereby ordered temporarily released.
Meanwhile the Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to transmit the minutes of the Court to First Judicial Circuit, Criminal Court “A” informing the Judge thereat of the decision of this Court.
However, Prosecution excepts and gives notice that they will take advantage of the law controlling.
Judge narrating further indicated that Honorable Court with such inflated and falsified documents which are only intended to mislead this Court. The said bond, being littered with such patent defects should be set aside and the defendants be rearrested and incarcerated at the Monrovia Central Prison pending the filling of a valid criminal appearance bond, and it is so prayed.
Accordingly, Defendants filed a nine-count motion to justify their surety, the relevance of which are stated herein below:
- That as to the alleged deficiencies enumerated in counts one and two of the plaintiff’s Exceptions to Defendants’ Bond, the defendants deny that their bond is insufficient or that the property offered is encumbered. On the contrary, the defendants contend that their bond is fully sufficient and meets the test as required under the law. Therefore, counts one and two of the Exceptions should be overruled denied and dismissed.
- That the crux of Defendants justification of its surety and on which Defendants place their entire reliance is the fact that the properties offered to secured this bond are genuine and legitimate because said properties were physically inspected, appraised and evaluated by the Liberia Revenue Authority (LRA), who is the official organ of the government of Liberia with expertise required for the evaluation and appraisal of properties in Liberia, and once the LRA is satisfied that the properties meet the standards required and issues the requisite clearance and or certificate, that is sufficient evident of the genuineness and validity of any bond, relying on said appraisal.
Therefore, the Exceptions raised by Prosecution are counterproductive and unsupported by law and the facts, for which the said exceptions should be overruled, denied and dismissed.
- That as to the challenge to the bond relating to the value on the face of the bond as being insufficient to cover the alleged value of the property said to have been damaged by the defendants, it is the contention of Defendants that Prosecution has misunderstood and misapplied the law and intends to mislead this Honorable Court into believing that the value of a criminal appearance bond should match or surpass the value of the property alleged to have been damaged or destroyed.
This is false and misleading and should be disregarded by this Honorable Court, for which Defendants’ criminal appearance bond should be allowed to stand. The law is that a criminal appearance bond is not intended to indemnify the plaintiff or the Private Prosecutor, but rather it is merely intended to ensure the day-to-day appearance of the defendants in court for the trial of the case.
For reliance, see Zuo v Morris et al [1994] 37 LLR 604 (1994) (22 September 1994) Syll. 1, 3, 4. Therefore, Defendants most respectfully pray Your Honor, to overrule, set aside, deny and dismiss this contention of Prosecution and sustain Defendants’ motion to justify.
- As to the request of the Prosecution for Defendants to be rearrested and reincarcerated, Defendants say there is no basis in law or in fact for this request. That under the Constitution of Liberia, a person accused of a crime which is not a capital offense or a grave offense as defined by law has the right to be released on bail upon his or her own personal recognizance.
See Article 21(d) (i). Also, the law forbids the imposition of excessive fine or excessive bail. Further to the above, it is to be observed and must be remembered that in the instance case, the present four defendants before this Court are all sitting members of the house of Representative and part of the 55th Legislature of Liberia, and are well deserving to be released from detention upon their personal recognizance, individually and collectively.
That in such event, the defendant may not be required to even post any bail bond but to be released and to appear on a day-to-day basis or whenever the case is called so long as their non-appearance will not impede the smooth conduct of the trial. Therefore, this contention of Prosecution should be overruled, denied and dismissed, along with the entire Exceptions.
Responding to defense argument for sufficiency of the Bond, state prosecutor also argued that he was surprised to see the defense raising the same issue for which the magisterial court was mandated to assume jurisdiction over and have the said hearing of the bail bond clearly shows that defense lawyers should be held in contempt.
He added that it is the believe of the prosecution that the sureties named in the bail bond as proffered by the Movants/defendants the sureties do not exist and therefore it is a clever attempt to delay the hearing of the bond which Criminal Court A mandated the hearing of the bond in the magisterial court.
Prosecution lawyer maintained that for movants/ defendants to indicate the hearing of the bond is moot, same does not exist because the City Court judge has a mandate to assume jurisdiction with specific need of the bond. He told court to take judicial notice of the record before it, a party which had filed in time cannot suffer waiver and lashes that is the record is before the court and the court itself should take judicial notice of the case file.
He prayed court to deny the defense submission and hold them to bring their sureties and if there is no sureties, let them file the proper bond and request court to order the special hearing of the bond.