Files Bill Of Information To Criminal Court “A”
By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia- Criminal Court “A” Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie has been listening to arguments (pro and con) from both defense and prosecution lawyers in a Bill of Information filed by the defense lawyer in the Eco Bank armed robbery case. claiming that his client Fobay Emery Johnson has a long mental health issue.
Defendant Johnson, an Instructor at the state owned University of Liberia, was charged by the Liberia National Police with armed robbery, Criminal Attempt to commit murder, among other things.
The Bill of Information was filed on September 8,2025 heard on September 11, 2025.
In his Bill of Information, the Informant/defendant, respectfully states and submits that he has a history of mental health conditions, diagnosed eight (8) years ago, for which he continues to receive ongoing treatment, including daily medication.
Further to Count One (1) above, the Informant states that on May 3,2018, he was diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder(GAD) at ELWA Hospital in Paynesville, Montserrado County. This condition is characterized by excessive and persistent worry that interferes with daily life, causing cognitive decline and impaired judgment.
The Informant’s attending physician, Dr. Romeo, prescribed anxiolytics and Neurobion to treat this condition. A copy of the medical record from the May 3,2018 evaluation and prescription, prepared by Dr. Romeo.
According to count two above, the Informant submits that in addition to the diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) made by ELWA Hospital in 2018, the Informant underwent a further evaluation at a medical facility in Cyprus on November 30,2021. This evaluation diagnosed the Informant with bipolar disorder with symptoms of depression, anxiety, and mania.
The Bill of information stated that, the Informant notes that it is common and public knowledge that these conditions-bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, and mania-are mental health conditions affecting a person’s emotional state, thought processes, and behavior.
They are typically diagnosed and treated by mental health professionals, such as psychiatrists or psychologists, and can significantly impact a person’s daily life and overall well-being. The Informant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court take judicial notice of these factual details as common and public knowledge. The findings are documented in the Informant’s medical records from the Cypriot medical facility.
Further to Counts 1-3 above, Informant avers that because of Informant’s longstanding battle with mental health conditions and his life being supported by daily dose of mental health medication, as supported by medical records, Informant is entitled to a mental Capacity Evaluation as a matter of law, as provided for at Section 6.1, 1 LCLR, which states: “no person who as a result of “mental disease” or defect lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense shall be tried, convicted, or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as such incapacity endures.
Therefore, the Informant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court order a mental capacity evaluation to determine whether he is fit to stand trial.
Further to Count 4 above, the Informant says that without a determination of his mental capacity, this court would be potentially subjecting him to stand trial while mentally ill, when in fact he should be receiving care at a medical facility to treat his conditions.
Further to Count 5, Informant says it is the law in vogue in this jurisdiction that “where the sanity of the accused is in doubt, it is an error for the trial court to refuse an application of defendant’s attorney to pass upon the defendant’s sanity.” See Gartargar v. Republic, 4 LLR, 70 (1934); Joe Weah v. Republic of Liberia, 35 LLR 567 (1988). Given that the Informant’s medical records clearly show a diagnosis and ongoing treatment for mental conditions, this raises sufficient doubt about his sanity to warrant this Honorable Court ordering a mental evaluation of the Informant.
The informant/ defendant lawyer Jura W. Lynch prayed court to;
- Grant this Bill of Information to Determine Informant’s Mental Competency;
- Order a mental capacity evaluation of the Informant to assess his fitness for purposes of these proceedings;
- Order a temporary and compassionate release of Informant so that he undergoes a comprehensive mental evaluation.
- Stay further proceedings in this matter pending the outcome of the mental capacity evaluation.
- Grant unto Informant all other relief that Your Honor and this Honorable Court may deem just, equitable, and legal in these premises.
In responding to the Bill information, the Republic of Liberia by and thru Angeline L. Sillah prayed court to dismiss and deny the Bill of Information for the following reasons as showeth to wit:
The respondent says, the entire ‘Bill of Information’, is improper as said precept is procedurally wrong and does not commensurate with the office of the Bill of Information as per the Revised Rules of Court.
The Respondent says further that a Bill of Information informs the Court that its mandate is being executed improperly or contrary to its decision as rendered. Additionally, the Supreme Court has decided a litany of cases in which it opined that for a Bill of Information to be granted, ‘the matter forming the basis of the information must have been pending before the Court or decided by it; that there must be an act tending to usurp the province of the Court; that there must exist some irregularities or obstruction in the execution of the Supreme Court’s mandate; or that there must have been a refusal to carry out the Supreme Court’s mandate. Ahmadu v. Sirleaf, III and Bartu Dorley, Informants v. Yessim EI-Bim, John Ghrib, Nashat Eid, Shouki Edi and Dilip Vassani, Respondent, Supreme Court Opinion, March Term 2013; Liberia Aggregate Corporation v. Taylor et al. [1988] LRSC 31; , 35 LLR 3, 8 (1988); Massaquoi-Fahnbulleh v. Urey and Massaquoi, [1977] LRSC 5; 25 LLR, 432,435-6, 1977);
Still traversing Count 1, Respondent says the Supreme Court has ruled that a Bill of Information will not lie in the absence of due process or a hearing consistent with due process. FLA v Metzger et al [2004] LRSC 6; 42 LLR 64 (2004) (13 August 2004).
Respondent says, that the Court has not even heard a motion in the present case, nor has an indictment been formulated nor any proceeding been issued by this court hence, the bill of Information filed by the Informants is not only improper but is a waste of the courts time and accordingly, as noted in by the Supreme Court in Brown v. His Honor Kollie should be fined or held in contempt for misusing the office of the Bill of Information. As to Count 1 of the Bill of Information,
Respondent avers that the Informant/Defendant claims a history of mental health conditions diagnosed eight years ago for which he receives ongoing treatment and daily medication do not constitute evidence of current incapacity to stand trial. Criminal Procedure Law, Title 2, Liberian Code of Laws Revised, § 6.1, No person who as a result of mental disease or defect lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense shall be tried, convicted, or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as such incapacity endures.
The Respondent says further that our Criminal law emphasizes that competency is determined by the Court subject to hearing (Criminal Procedure Law 6.3) and such cannot preclude legal proceedings (Criminal Procedure Law 6.4). As to Count 2 of the Bill of Information, Respondents says that citing a 2021 diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) at ELWA Hospital, supported by alleging cognitive decline and impaired judgment does not inherently impair trial competency, particularly absent evidence linking the condition to an inability to understand or participate in proceedings.
Historical medical diagnoses must be accompanied by contemporaneous proof of incapacity to trigger a competency inquiry; accordingly, the Informant/Defendant’s exhibit, dated 2021, is stale and fails to demonstrate current unfitness. Criminal Procedure Law, Title 2, Section 6.2,3,4. As to Count 3 of the Bill of Information, Respondents avers the Informant/Defendant’s actions planning and executing an armed bank robbery, including traveling to Gbarnga to obtain a firearm demonstrate rational, goal-oriented behaviour inconsistent with incapacity, negating any reasonable doubt.
As to Count 4, the Respondent submits that no reasonable doubt exists, as required by to justify such an order. The Informant/Defendant has not alleged specific behaviors, disorientation in court or inability to confer with counsel that would trigger an evaluation. the Supreme Court has opined that competency motion absent observable evidence of incapacity, emphasizing that historical diagnoses alone are insufficient.
The respondent prayed court to Deny and dismiss the Bill of Information as procedurally improper and lacking merit; Proceed to trial on the merits, as the Informant/Defendant is competent; Grant unto the Respondent all further relief that justice and equity demand.
Meanwhile, Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie has set this Friday, September 12,2025 to rule in the Bill of information.