The Stipendiary Magistrate of the Monrovia City Court has now heard final arguments in a high-profile legal battle over the legitimacy of a US$2.24 million property surety bond filed by former Speaker J. Fonati Koffa and three other lawmakers.
On Tuesday, June 24, 2025, Magistrate L. Ben Barco presided over the bond justification hearing, which involved a detailed examination of evidence submitted by both the defense and prosecution.
The proceedings stem from a June 23 court directive ordering the defendants to justify their bond or face immediate rearrest.
With all evidence and arguments now presented, the court has reserved its ruling until Thursday at midday, a decision that could carry profound legal and political consequences.
Defense: A Structured Justification
The defense concluded its case after presenting both oral and documentary evidence.
A key moment came with the testimony of Joanna Janet Koffa, General Manager of United Commanded Inc., who calmly affirmed the legitimacy of the bond and vouched for the financial credibility of the sureties.
Joanna, who identified Marjan Mona Koffa, one of the sureties, as her sister, dismissed the prosecution’s claims that the bond was “bogus” or “worthless.
Ms. Koffa presented five land deeds with various locations as validate property surety bond.
Defense counsel cited several provisions of Liberian law, including Chapter 25, Sections 25.5 and 25.6, and Chapter 63, Section 63.1-5, to affirm the bond’s procedural sufficiency.
They also attempted to subpoena documents reportedly held by a third party, Trax Poayes, but the court denied the motion, ruling it untimely.
The defense rested its case by invoking Jimmy v. Republic; a Supreme Court precedent that they argue affirms the validity of bonds that meet procedural criteria.
Prosecution: Legal Firepower and Harsh Rebuttal
The prosecution, for its part, mounted an aggressive rebuttal. Relying on Liberia’s Civil Procedure Law, especially Sections 63.2(3), 63.1(B & D), and 63.6, they argued that the bond is not merely procedurally flawed but also substantively inadequate.
Citing Griffith v. Wadan, 35 LLR, syllables 8–10, prosecutors emphasized that criminal appearance bonds must be backed by credible financial guarantees and withstand public scrutiny.
They cast doubt on both the structure of the bond and the reliability of the defense’s witness.
In closing, the prosecution urged the court to reject the bond, re-arrest the defendants, and uphold standards that ensure bonds are both procedurally sound and substantively credible.
Legal and Political implications
This case has drawn significant public interest, not only for its legal dimensions but also due to the high-profile status of the defendants.
Invalidation of the bond could trigger the re-arrest of current lawmakers, a politically volatile outcome.
Legal analysts note that the defense has constructed a procedural defense fortified by jurisprudence and witness testimony, while the prosecution has focused on penetrating that defense by attacking the bond’s core substance.
Are These Lawmakers Entitled to Personal Recognizance?
Under Liberian criminal law, “personal recognizance” permits a defendant’s release without bond, based on a written promise to return to court.
Article 21(d) (i) of the 1986 Constitution supports such release for minor offenses but excludes capital and grave crimes.
Despite the constitutional allowance, personal recognizance is rarely granted, even for lesser charges, due to judicial discretion or perceived flight risks.
Some legal commentators argue that the lawmakers, each serving four-year terms and receiving substantial public benefits, pose minimal risk of absconding.
Their political and financial ties, critics say, far outweigh any alleged damages to the Capitol building.
Several voices are now urging government attorneys to accept the surety bond and proceed to trial, rather than prolong procedural delays.
Awaiting the Verdict
With a ruling expected Thursday at noon, attention now turns to Magistrate Barco’s bench.
The outcome will not only determine the defendants’ immediate fate but could also shape future interpretations of bond sufficiency in high-profile criminal cases.
Will the court side with the defense’s insistence on procedural compliance? Or will it uphold the prosecution’s argument that substance must prevail over form in the interest of justice?
The clock is ticking.
