The Assigned Circuit Judge of Criminal Court ‘C’, Ousman F. Feika, has dismissed an indictment against two former officials of the National Oil Company of Liberia (NOCAL), ruling that prosecutors failed to begin trial within the time required by law.
The decision, handed down Tuesday, March 17, 2026, in Monrovia followed a defense motion arguing that the case had stalled across two successive court terms without trial proceedings.
Court Relies on Statutory Time Limit
The defendants, Rustonlyn Suacoco Dennis, former Chief Executive Officer/President of NOCAL, and Richman Jallah, Financial Controller-had been charged in an indictment filed by the Republic of Liberia through the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission.
The charges included economic sabotage, tampering with public records, criminal conspiracy, criminal facilitation, criminal attempt, and alleged violations of public procurement and financial management laws.
In their February 9 motion to dismiss, the defense argued that the prosecution failed to proceed to trial within the timeframe required under Chapter 18, Section 18.2 of Liberia’s Criminal Procedure Law, which states: “…Unless good cause is shown, a court shall dismiss an indictment if the defendant is not tried in the succeeding term after the finding of an indictment…”
The defense maintained that the delay violated statutory protections and infringed upon constitutional rights, including freedom of movement and the presumption of innocence.
Prosecution Cites Court Backlog
In response, prosecutors did not dispute that trial had not commenced. However, they argued that the defendants had not filed motions requesting assignment or advancement of the case on the docket.
The prosecution also referenced the court’s workload, noting multiple criminal matters handled in recent terms, and argued that dismissal would not prevent refiling of charges. It further contended that the court had authority to assign cases on its own initiative and that the defendants were not detained.
Judge Places Burden on Prosecution
In his ruling, Judge Feika emphasized that once a defendant invokes Section 18.2, the burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate “good cause” for the delay.
The court stated:
“Once Chapter 18; Section 18.2 of the Criminal Procedure Law is evoked… the indictment… shall be dismissed forthwith unless good cause is shown.”
The judge rejected the prosecution’s explanations, describing them as legally insufficient to justify the failure to proceed to trial.
The ruling underscored that statutory deadlines are mandatory and that failure to meet them triggers dismissal unless the prosecution provides a legally acceptable reason.
Indictment Dismissed Without Prejudice
The court ordered the indictment dismissed without prejudice, allowing the possibility of refiling the case in the future, subject to legal requirements.
The judgment concluded:
“The motion to dismiss should be and the same is hereby granted and the resistance thereto denied and dismissed. The indictment… is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the prosecution and the movants discharged of the crimes contained therein and their constitutional rights restored consistent with law.”
Section 18.2 of the Criminal Procedure Law is intended to prevent indefinite postponement of criminal trials and reinforce due process standards within the justice system.
The ruling may have implications for other pending criminal cases where statutory trial timelines are in question.
