Monrovia – The family of Ernree Neeplo has rejected the recent ruling by Criminal Court “C” convicting her on corruption-related charges, alleging that key evidence was misrepresented and misinterpreted, and has vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court.
In a statement titled “When Justice Raises Questions: The Ernree Neeplo Story,” the family described the court’s ruling as deeply flawed, pointing to inconsistencies between official testimony and public records—especially regarding the legal status of a business central to the charges.
The court’s decision, they say, was heavily influenced by testimony from the Liberia Business Registry (LBR), which claimed that IT FastTrack, a company cited in the case, was never a legally registered entity. However, documents submitted by the family show that IT FastTrack has been officially registered since March 12, 2013, with Sam Tucker listed as the sole proprietor.
“This contradiction raises troubling questions,” the family stated. “Why did the LBR tell the court that IT FastTrack never existed when public documentation proves otherwise?”
Timeline Discrepancies and Questionable Evidence
The family further noted that Mrs. Neeplo wasn’t married until March 2014, nearly a year after IT FastTrack reportedly conducted a transaction with the Planned Parenthood Association of Liberia (PPAL) in April 2013. They also revealed that the company has since done business with various government agencies, including the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC)—the same institution prosecuting the case.
At the time of the alleged offense, Mrs. Neeplo served as Program Manager at PPAL. Prosecutors accused her of diverting $38,200 meant for youth center renovations to purchase a vehicle for the Executive Director. But testimony from PPAL’s current Officer-in-Charge—who worked under Neeplo—indicated that 12 of the 15 youth centers were in fact renovated, with photographic evidence to support this claim.
The family added that according to PPAL’s internal policies, Mrs. Neeplo did not have the authority to approve such expenditures, which required Board approval. In court, the Executive Director also testified that she contributed $10,000 of her personal funds, along with leftover administrative balances, to purchase the SUV in question.
Audit and Procurement Questions
The judge also appeared swayed by audit findings that only one laptop from 2013 was available during a 2020 forensic audit. But the family called this an unrealistic expectation, noting that “most businesses replace computers every 3-5 years.” Multiple IT professionals in Monrovia confirmed that it would be unusual for eight-year-old laptops to remain in service or inventory.
Another controversial element of the ruling involves J&D Catering Services, a company owned by Mrs. Neeplo’s mother. The court ordered her to repay $2,500, citing conflict of interest. Yet records show she disclosed the relationship and recused herself from the procurement process. PPAL’s Chairman testified that the food was delivered and that “the food was good.” Despite this, PPAL has yet to pay the catering company.
Missing Records and Denied Evidence
Perhaps most concerning, according to the family, is that when Mrs. Neeplo’s lawyers requested documents covering 2013 to 2018, PPAL instead submitted records from 2010 to 2012, citing lack of resources to retrieve the relevant files. The court, however, allowed the outdated documents, which the defense argued were irrelevant to the case.
‘A Dangerous Precedent’
“The LBR’s contradictory statement isn’t just a clerical error,” the family warned. “It shaped the entire verdict. If official government institutions provide false information that leads to a citizen’s conviction, then we must question the integrity of the judicial process.”
As the family prepares to take their appeal to the Supreme Court, they are calling for a thorough review of the evidence and the decision-making process that led to the conviction.
“Liberians deserve to know,” the family concluded, “whether this was a simple mistake—or something more deliberate. The answer could determine whether this is truly justice served, or justice denied.”
