Temple of Justice-The courtroom of Criminal Court “C” has become the latest flashpoint in the unfolding saga involving the alleged misappropriation of $500,000 worth of Saudi-donated rice.
The Republic of Liberia, represented by the Assets Recovery & Property Retrieval Taskforce (AREPT), has formally challenged the legitimacy of a bail bond filed by several top former accused officials of government.
However, representing six of the accused top former officials of Government, Cllr. Jimmy Saah Bombo argue that the prosecution’s objection is legally baseless, citing Supreme Court precedents and statutory authority.
The case, presided over by His Honor Judge Joe S. Barkon, involves multiple former government officials, including Mary Broh, Dee-Maxwell Saah Kemayah, and Varney A. Sirleaf, charged with Theft of Property, Economic Sabotage, Misapplication of Entrusted Property, Abuse of Office, and Criminal Conspiracy.
Though Broh and Kemayah are named in the principal indictment, the current dispute focuses on a criminal appearance bond filed by Sky International Insurance Company on behalf of Henry O. Williams, Augustine Kollie, Archievego M. Doe, Rosetta L. Gbassay Bowah, Evelyn Ghee, and Memie Davis, collectively referred to as Movants in the motion to justify the bond.
The Legal Bone of Contention: Is the Bond Sufficient?
AREPT has challenged the bond on grounds that Sky International Insurance Company is already serving as surety in several unrelated cases and may not possess sufficient liquidity or assets to back additional obligations.
The State argues this could undermine the bond’s effectiveness in ensuring the defendants’ appearance in court.
The Co-movants’ defense team, headed by Cllr. Bombo, contend otherwise, insisting that Sky International meets all statutory and judicially established requirements to act as a surety.
Legal Framework: Statutory and Judicial Precedents
Cllr. Bombo cited several legal reliance including Section 13.4 of the Liberian Criminal Procedure Law, which governs the approval and sufficiency of bail bonds.
Section 13.4(1):
“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 and as represented by the defendant.”
Section 13.4(2):
“The prosecuting attorney may except to the sufficiency of a surety… the surety thus served shall appear before the court, where he may be examined under oath concerning his sufficiency…”
To bolster their case, the defense cites two leading decisions from the Supreme Court of Liberia:
Reeves v. Quiah Brothers, [2012] LSC 4 (March 1, 2012)
This ruling defined the minimum qualifications for insurance companies acting as sureties:
Articles of Incorporation proving legal existence;
Valid registration and authorization to operate in Liberia;
Tax clearance from the Ministry of Finance; Certification from a regulatory authority (e.g., Central Bank of Liberia) affirming that the company possesses sufficient net assets within Liberia, exclusive of other bonds.
The Court held these conditions were designed to ensure reliability and to shield the State and the courts from “uncertainty, injury, or further damages.”
Khalik v. Musahson, [2014] LRSC 18 (January 17, 2014)
According to Cllr. Bombo, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Reeves standard, clarifying that courts must ensure surety companies maintain verifiable financial capacity, and that each bond must be evaluated independently, not in aggregate with others the company may have previously issued.
Defense: Bond Complies with All Requirements:
According to filings and exhibits, Sky International Insurance Company has met all criteria:
It is duly incorporated and registered;
It holds a current tax clearance from the Liberia Revenue Authority (LRA);
It submitted an audited financial statement, not a fluctuating bank statement, which the defense argues is more appropriate and legally sufficient;
It holds a valid certification from relevant insurance regulators.
“There is no provision in Liberian law that mandates the attachment of a bank statement to a criminal appearance bond,” argued Cllr. Jimmy Saah Bombo, one of the lead defense counsels.
“The law explicitly requires an audited financial statement—not volatile bank balances. Sky Insurance complied with every requirement, and we challenge the State to produce legal authority to the contrary.”
Addressing AREPT’s Overburdening Argument:
AREPT’s claim that Sky Insurance may be overburdened by previous bonds was sharply criticized by the defense as speculative and inapplicable under current law.
They pointed again to Section 13.4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law, which speaks solely to the adequacy of the bond for the individual defendant, not to the company’s history of bonding others.
“Each bond is a standalone security instrument,” said Cllr. Bombo.
“The law doesn’t authorize courts to disqualify a surety simply because it is doing business elsewhere. If we allow that reasoning, no insurance company could ever issue multiple bonds, which would violate due process and access to justice.”
Constitutional Dimension: Right to Bail and Due Process:
The defense further accused the prosecution of interfering with the judicial process by pressuring insurance companies not to underwrite bonds for the accused.
They cited Article 21(h) of the Liberian Constitution, which enshrines the presumption of innocence and guarantees every accused person the right to bail, a right they argue, is being subverted through intimidation tactics.
“The Prosecution is not above the Constitution,” said Cllr. Bombo.
“Attempting to block our clients from securing bail—without lawful justification, is a direct attack on the rule of law and a regression into extrajudicial punishment.”
Purpose of the Bond: Appearance, Not Restitution:
Citing the Penal Law of Liberia, the defense clarified that the purpose of a criminal appearance bond is to ensure the accused remains within the jurisdiction for trial, not to guarantee restitution in the event of conviction.
If convicted, the law already provides for sentencing and, where applicable, restitution, calculated at a rate of one month imprisonment for every US$25 owed, under the statutory sentencing guidelines.
Judge Barkon is now tasked with evaluating both the procedural integrity and constitutional dimensions of this dispute. A ruling in favor of the prosecution may establish stricter scrutiny on corporate sureties in economic crimes.
A ruling in favor of the defense, however, would reaffirm existing legal standards and bolster the constitutional right to bail.
