Over Boakai Gov’t Challenge Of Criminal Appearance Bond
PHOTO: Samuel Tweah leaving the Criminal Court recently
By Garmah Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia- The prosecution of former Finance Minister Samuel and several other former officials of the erstwhile CDC government for alleged corruption and economic sabotage has hit a snag over the Unity Party government’s questioning of the validity of the multimillion US dollars bond submitted to the court.
The government through the Justice Ministry has delayed the hearing of prosecution’s exceptions to defendant’s separate criminal appearance bond and for the hearing of defendant’s separate motions for justification of sureties, the Republic of Liberia by and thru the Justice Ministry has requested Criminal Court “C” to defer the said hearings to Friday November 15,2024 (last week) to enable prosecution to attend a Habeas corpus before Criminal Court “A”.
While, the public await 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” it has therefore been postponed.
In 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 @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.
In view of the above, prosecution would highly appropriate were you to re-schedule this assignment to 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 8M United States Dollars criminal appearance bond filed by Liberia’s Ex-Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah.
Samuel D. 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.
Montserrado County Attorney Cllr. Richard Scott Jr. during the earlier hearing said, why judge Dixon couldn’t 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 promised to take advantage of the law’s controlling.
Judge Dixon the rationale behind his earlier decision to decline to hear prosecution separate motion of exceptions was because Defendant Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. and the other Co- Defendants herein above named was not docketed for the August Term of Court, A. D. 2024.
He said, In other words, the Case is not on the Docket for the August Term of Court, A. D. 2024. Further, it is worthy to note that the said Case was transferred from the First Judicial Circuit, Criminal Court “A”, Montserrado County, Republic of Liberia, to the Criminal Court “C” on September 6, 2024, same being the 22nd Day’s Jury Sitting, about one month ago; but the Prosecution and the Defense Team failed to file a Motion to Advance the Case on the Docket for the August Term of Court, A. D. 2024.
Therefore, the Case is not docketed for the August Term of Court, A. D. 2024. To sum up, the August Term of Court, A. D. 2024 closed for transaction of Business on September 30, 2024; same being the 42nd Day’s Jury sitting judge added .
That is to say, the Judge is out of Term Time or his Assignment to preside over the Criminal Court “C” has expired, pending new Assignment from the Chief Justice of the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia.
The Closing Chambers Session of the Court which is only for Ten (10) Days commenced on Tuesday, October 1, 2024.
The Court has already exhausted Eight (8) Days remaining Two (2) 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 appealing to the Chief Justice of the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia for Extension of Time.
The Case is a new Case. The Indictment was drawn up on September 5, 2024 by the Grand Jury of Montserrado County, Republic of Liberia, sitting in its August Term, A. D. 2024.
The Court is poised to have the Case docketed for the November Term of Court, A. D.2024; in the absence of the Motion to Advance the said Case on the Docket for the August Term of Court, A. D. 2024. The filing of such motion is late and moot.
The November Term of Court, A. D. 2024 shall commence on November 11, 2024. In conclusion, the Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to have the said Case docketed for the November Term of Court, A. D. 2024.
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. Finally, the Prosecution is hereby ordered to disclose and surrender to the Defense Team all species of Evidence and Instruments that the Prosecution intends to use as Evidence against the Defendants, during the Trial on/or before November 11, 2024.
Samuel D. Tweah former Liberia’s Finance Minister, Cllr. Nyanti Tuan former Acting Justice Minister/ Solicitor General, D.Moses P. Cooper former controller Financial Intelligence Agency, Stanley S. Ford, former Director of Financial Intelligence Agency, Jefferson Karmoh former National Security Advisor to President George Weah were all present in court.
The within defendants have been indicted by the Liberian 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 of Liberia headed by its Solicitor General Cllr Augustine Fayiah and Montserrado County Attorney Cllr. Richard Scott have threatened to file a writ of certiorari against Criminal Court “C “ resident Judge A. Blamo Dixon for declining to hear their notice of exceptions to defendant’s SamuelTweah criminal appearance bond.
According to their notice of exceptions, Co-defendant Samuel 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 USD$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 f 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’s further avers that the criminal appearance bond filed by co-defendant Tweah’s to the tone of eight Million United States dollars is latently insufficient because the surety has no adequate amount to cover the bond.
Additionally, the plaintiff’s exception to co-defendant, Samuel 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 provides that the court shall approve a bail bond and release the defendant if a 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 . Hence, 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 Samuel D. 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 Samuel D 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:
Movant informs the court that he resists plaintiff’s exceptions to the criminal appearance bond . He moves 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 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.