MONROVIA – The Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Taskforce (AREPT), in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice, has mounted a fresh legal challenge to two Criminal Appearance Bonds recently filed and approved on behalf of indictee Nora Finda Bundoo in the ongoing Gracious Ride case.
AREPT has filed a Motion to Refuse Jurisdiction before Criminal Court “C”, arguing that the court should not have proceeded with the new bonds because the same bond dispute was already pending before the Justice in Chambers of the Supreme Court of Liberia.
The motion places the handling of Bundoo’s bail at the center of a broader judicial procedure dispute, raising questions about which court had authority to act while proceedings concerning the bond were pending before the Supreme Court.
According to AREPT, Criminal Court “C” should have awaited the outcome of the proceedings before the Justice in Chambers and the issuance of the appropriate mandate before taking further action on the bond issue.
The dispute follows a series of developments surrounding Bundoo’s criminal appearance bond.
On July 21, 2026, Criminal Court “C” sustained AREPT’s exception to Bundoo’s replacement bond after determining that the proposed sureties failed to meet the requirements of Liberian law.
The court subsequently disqualified the bonds, set a new bail threshold of US$8 million and ordered Bundoo taken into custody pending the filing and approval of a valid Criminal Appearance Bond.
Following her incarceration, Bundoo’s legal team excepted to the ruling and petitioned the Justice in Chambers of the Supreme Court.
The Justice in Chambers subsequently ordered Bundoo’s release pending a conference scheduled for Tuesday, August 4, 2026, to address the issues raised in the petition.
AREPT now contends that while those proceedings remained pending and before the scheduled conference took place, two new Criminal Appearance Bonds were presented to and approved by Criminal Court “C”.
It is this sequence of events that has prompted the Taskforce to challenge the lower court’s action.
At the heart of AREPT’s motion is not an attempt to deny Bundoo’s constitutional right to seek bail, according to the Taskforce, but a challenge to whether Criminal Court “C” could properly entertain and approve new bonds while the same dispute was before the Supreme Court Justice in Chambers.
The Taskforce argues that allowing parallel proceedings over the same bond issue could undermine established judicial procedures and create uncertainty over which court should control the matter.
The case therefore presents the Judiciary with a delicate procedural question. While an accused person has legal rights that must be respected, the courts must also ensure that judicial proceedings follow established rules governing jurisdiction, appeals and the authority of different levels of the court system.
AREPT maintains that adherence to those procedures is essential to fairness, consistency and public confidence in the administration of justice.
The latest development also adds another layer to a case that has attracted considerable attention because of the allegations against Bundoo and her co-defendants.
Bundoo and the other indictees face charges including money laundering, theft of property, misuse of public money, property or records, criminal conspiracy, forgery and criminal facilitation.
The charges remain allegations, and the accused persons are entitled to due process and a fair determination of the case in accordance with Liberian law.
For AREPT, however, the immediate issue is procedural rather than the merits of the criminal charges. The Taskforce is asking Criminal Court “C” to determine whether it had authority to act on the new bonds while proceedings over the same matter were pending before the Supreme Court.
The court’s handling of the motion could therefore have implications beyond Bundoo’s bail dispute, particularly concerning the orderly movement of cases between lower courts and the Supreme Court.
AREPT says it remains committed to pursuing the matter through lawful procedures and respecting the independence of the Judiciary.
The latest motion now puts the question of judicial jurisdiction and procedural consistency squarely before the court as the legal battle over Bundoo’s bail continues.
