The withdrawal came in the wake of a comprehensive legal challenge mounted by the Ministry of Justice, which strongly objected to the bail bond’s approval by Resident Circuit Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie.
Monrovia – Defense lawyers representing eight criminal defendants have withdrawn their previously filed bail bond, following intense objections raised by state prosecutors.
Selma Lomax and Willie N. Tokpah
The defendants — Thomas Kivi Bah alias ‘Kaba’, Jerry Pokah alias ‘Tyrese’, Stephen M. Broh, John Nyanti, Christian Kofa, Amos Kofa, Eric Susay, and Thomas Etheridge — are accused of serious offenses stemming from the December 2023 incident involving an alleged arson attack on the Capitol Building.
Charges include arson, criminal attempt to commit murder, criminal mischief, criminal conspiracy, criminal facilitation, criminal solicitation, release of destructive forces, reckless burning or exploding, and recklessly endangering another person.
Through a formal communication addressed to the Clerk of the First Judicial Circuit, Criminal Court “A”, defense counsel Cllr. Jonathan T. Massaquoi requested that the withdrawal be noted in the court’s official minutes. The defense underscored that the withdrawal was “without prejudice,” preserving their right to refile a new bond application at a later date.
“Upon receipt of this Notice of Withdrawal, you will please spread on the minutes of this Honorable Court and enter upon its records that the Defendants have on this day and date hereby withdrawn the Criminal Appearance Bond filed with this Court, with the right to refile, to ensure the day-to-day appearance of the said Defendants during the May A.D. 2025 Term of this Court, based on the crimes charged,” the defense’s submission read.
The withdrawal came in the wake of a comprehensive legal challenge mounted by the Ministry of Justice, which strongly objected to the bail bond’s approval by Resident Circuit Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie.
Prosecutors contended that the bond was legally and procedurally deficient, especially given the gravity of the crimes charged and what they described as a credible threat of flight risk.
According to court filings submitted by prosecutors, several defendants — most notably Thomas Etheridge — had previously fled Liberia during the early stages of the police investigation. Prosecutors alleged that the defendants used false identities to escape into neighboring Sierra Leone and Ghana.
These actions, they argued, demonstrate an active intent to evade justice. “Prosecution says further that when the Government of Liberia began collaborating with the Governments of Sierra Leone and Ghana to repatriate them, the Government of Sierra Leone alerted the Government of Liberia that Etheridge was already on his way back to Liberia with the aim of getting his family out of Liberia. Etheridge returned, he processed passports for himself, his girlfriend and son, thereby confirming the information and intelligence that the Government of Liberia had received,” the prosecution noted in its formal exception.
In addition to raising alarm over potential flight risk, prosecutors took issue with the property used to secure the bond. The surety, they claimed, presented a tax receipt for US$4,500 based on a property located in the Virginia, Tire Shop Community near the residence of Representative James Momo.
However, the Liberia Revenue Authority (LRA) tax records indicated the property was in arrears of US$10,500, thereby violating legal standards requiring real properties used for bond security to be fully paid, unencumbered, and held in fee simple by the surety.
The prosecution further emphasized that a bond’s validity must also consider the sufficiency of the guarantor’s assets and the national security implications of releasing defendants facing such grave charges.
The Ministry of Justice warned that the current bond failed to provide any meaningful assurance that the defendants would remain in Liberia to stand trial.
Moreover, two of the named defendants, Karpeh and Fansleh, remain at large and are yet to be placed under the jurisdiction of the court. The state argued that allowing a bond to cover individuals who are not physically present or in custody undermines the very purpose of a criminal appearance bond.
“In the instant case, the bail bond posted in favor of the defendants is void of any guarantee that the defendants, when bailed, will remain in the country for the trial of this case, which poses a serious national security risk,” the prosecution warned in its submission. “Every bail bond must have a security for the fulfillment of the conditions of the said bond.”
Prosecutors also discredited the property valuation report submitted with the bond, stating that it was outdated and lacked notarization. The document, according to Prosecutors, prepared by Caesar Architects Inc. in 2013, was never sanctioned by a court of record and failed to account for depreciation, making it insufficient to support a bond of this nature.
Following these objections, the defense chose to withdraw the bond before the court could issue a ruling on the state’s exceptions. Legal analysts suggest this move may have been strategic, allowing the defense to address the prosecution’s concerns before refiling a more robust and legally sound bond package.
Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie is expected to convene additional hearings in the coming days to address the next steps, including whether a new bond submission will be accepted or if the defendants will remain in pretrial detention.
