Former Speaker Fonati Koffa and three other lawmakers charged in connection with the arson attack on the Capitol in December 2024, breathed a sigh of relief yesterday, when their contentious property valuation bond was accepted by Monrovia City Court.
With the bond issue now put to rest, the next thing is for the government to issue the indictment against the defendants.
Magistrate Ben Barco announced the decision yesterday after he denied the prosecution’s opposition to the bond. If this would happen the other way around, it means the defendants were going to be rearrested, and detained the intention of the prosecution.
Further to the ruling, Magistrate Barco said, “having established that the sureties are authorized by law to serve as sureties on a criminal appearance bond, and the bond before Court not being an indemnity bond. and coupled with the fact that Defendants are all members of the House of representatives representing different districts, the Court finds the sureties sufficient and hereby makes an appropriate endorsement of the said criminal appearance bond.”
Justifying his ruling, Barco explained that Jonda Janet Koffa, the daughter of Cllr. Koffa testified under oath that she and her sister Marjan are co-owners to the properties proffered as surety for the bond, by virtue of title deeds issued them, and that her sister Marjan who is out of the bailiwick of this Republic willingly consented for the property to be used for the said purpose via an affidavit of consent.
In addition to the said affidavit, the magistrate noted that the witness also testified to five deeds, constituting properties in Todee and Marshall City that were proffered for the surety bond. Same were marked and admitted into evidence.
Chapter 63.3(a, b, c & d) of the Civil Procedure Law provides the standard for the sufficiency of a surety.
That law provides that a surety bond must be accompanied by an affidavit of surety which shall contain the following: (a) a statement that one of the sureties or both combined are the owners of the real property offered as security; (b) a description of the property, sufficiently identified to establish a lien on the property: (C) a statement of the total amount of the liens, unpaid taxes and other encumbrances against each property offered; and (d) a statement of the assessed value of the property offered.
In compliance with the said provision, Barco said, Jonda Janet Koffa and Marjan Mona Koffa presented themselves as the owners of the real property offered as surety, and their assertion was verified by a total of five deeds, with the locations of the properties, which are all registered in their names.
“A spreadsheet containing the descriptions of the properties, values and their tax analysis is attached to the surety bond,” the Magistrate’s ruling said. “Also attached to the bond is a tax clearance, issued to Jonda Janet Koffa and Marjan Mona Koffa as taxpayers, with Taxpayer Identification Number 502046760, and with the signatures of H. Bashelu Kromah, Assistant Commissioner, Small Tax Division, and Margaret P. Krote, Acting Commissioner, Domestic Tax Department, all of the LRA.”
As per that document, he said, the tax period runs for 90 days, beginning June 9, 2025, to September 7, 2025, and the said document doesn’t show that the properties are encumbered.
Accordingly, Barco ruled, “this Court is satisfied that the properties offered to secure the criminal appearance bond are genuine and legitimate since they were appraised and assessed by the Liberia Revenue Authority (LRA), as evident by its Tax Clarence.”
However, Barco said, prosecution says that the bond posted by Defendants with a value of US$441,863.5.00 is grossly inadequate to secure the release of Defendants accused of the damage of US$8.6 million and requires that they post a bond with a value one and a half of the value of the damage property or US$13 million.
Interestingly, Barco ruling said, prosecution did not state any legal reliance.
“The law extant in this jurisdiction is that excessive bail is not required as found in Article 21 (d) (ii) of the Constitution of Liberia,” noted Barco.
Additionally, the magistrate said, the bond proffered by the Defendants was not an indemnity bond but a criminal appearance bond, and the requirement is that a criminal appearance bond is for the day-to-day appearance of the defendant.
”On the face of the criminal appearance bond posted with this Court, the sureties guaranteed that they are binding themselves to produce the defendants before this Court,” according to the Magistrate.
More to that, Barco said, the defendants are all public servants occupying the positions of Honorable Representatives of the House of Representatives of the National Legislature.
“This Court recognizes the fact that under the Constitution of the Republic of Liberia (1986), a person accused of a crime which is not a capital offense, or a grave offense as defined by law has the right to be released on bail upon his or her own personal recognizance (See Article 21(d) (1)),” he added.
“Defendants being all elected Representatives, can be released upon their personal recognizance as contemplated by the 1986 Constitution.”
In addition to their statuses, Magistrate Barco noted, they have also filed a Criminal Appearance Bond guaranteed by sureties who have also appeared and justified their sufficiency and adequacy.
He said, the sureties guaranteed to answer to the charges against them as per the writ of arrest and that if convicted. “Defendants will be surrendered to the custody of the Court to undergo the full sentence of the law. What this means is that the sureties only guaranteed the appearance of defendants and not to indemnify them.
More to that, the defendants are all public servants occupying the positions of Representatives of the House of Representatives of the National Legislature. This Court recognizes the fact that under the Constitution of the Republic of Liberia (1986), a person accused of a crime which is not a capital offense, or a grave offense as defined by law has the right to be released on bail upon his or her own personal recognizance (See Article 21(d) (1)).
The defendants being all elected district representatives, can be released upon their personal recognizance as contemplated by the 1986 Constitution. In addition to their statuses, they have also filed a Criminal Appearance Bond guaranteed by sureties who have also appeared and justified their sufficiency and adequacy.
Magistrate Barco ruled, “the exception to the Criminal Appearance Bond filed by Prosecution is denied, and the motion to justify granted and Defendants are hereby ordered temporarily released.”
Meanwhile, Barco instructed the Clerk of Court to transmit the minutes of the Court to First Judicial Circuit, Criminal Court “A” informing the Judge thereafter of the decision of this Court.
This ruling is in compliance with the mandate of Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie, Resident Circuit Judge of Criminal Court “A” in which he ordered this Court as follows: “…you are hereby mandated to resume jurisdiction of the Prosecution’s Exception to Defendants Bail Bond and the Respondents’/Defendants’ Resistance and proceed in keeping with the law controlling.”
