Defense Seeks Emergency Writ of Prohibition, Says Criminal Court Violated Due Process and Imposed Excessive Bail
By: Willie N. Tokpah
MONROVIA-Former Executive Mansion Chief of Protocol Nora Finda Bundoo has escalated her legal battle to Liberia’s highest court, asking the Supreme Court to immediately halt a Criminal Court “C” ruling that sent her to prison after rejecting her criminal appearance bond and imposing an unprecedented US$8 million bail requirement.
The emergency petition, filed before the Justice in Chambers of the Supreme Court, challenges Tuesday’s ruling by Assigned Circuit Judge Ousman F. Feika, arguing that the lower court exceeded its authority, violated statutory procedures, and imposed a bail amount so excessive that it effectively stripped Bundoo of her constitutional right to pretrial release.
The latest development shifts the legal contest from the factual allegations in the government’s corruption case to a broader constitutional question with potentially far-reaching implications for Liberia’s criminal justice system, namely, whether a trial court can impose a multimillion-dollar bail requirement without first allowing a defendant the statutory opportunity to correct defects in a rejected bond, and whether bail can be fixed at a level that effectively guarantees detention before trial.
In their petition, Bundoo’s lawyers contend that Judge Feika acted contrary to Liberia’s Civil Procedure Law by ordering their client’s immediate incarceration after rejecting her second criminal appearance bond.
They argued that the law provides defendants with seventy-two hours to justify, replace, or perfect a bond before an arrest order may be enforced.
According to the defense, that mandatory safeguard was ignored.
“The trial court denied the petitioner the statutory opportunity to remedy any perceived defects in her bond,” the filing argues, maintaining that the immediate commitment to the Monrovia Central Prison violated procedural due process guaranteed under Liberian law.
The petition also mounts a direct constitutional attack on the US$8 million bail threshold, asserting that the amount violates Article 21 of the Liberian Constitution, which prohibits excessive bail.
Defense lawyers further argued that criminal appearance bonds exist solely to ensure a defendant’s appearance in court, not to punish an accused person before conviction or mirror the financial allegations contained in an indictment.
The filing further argued that Judge Feika improperly anchored the bail requirement to the total monetary losses alleged in the multi-defendant corruption case rather than assessing Bundoo’s individual circumstances, including her voluntary return to Liberia from medical treatment abroad and her submission to the court’s jurisdiction.
Court records indicate that Bundoo returned to Liberia in June after receiving medical treatment overseas and voluntarily appeared before the court upon learning of the charges against her.
Following Tuesday’s ruling, she again surrendered voluntarily, reporting to the Monrovia Central Prison before court officers executed the arrest warrant issued against her.
Those facts, the defense contends, demonstrate that Bundoo has consistently respected the judicial process and presents no risk of absconding, factors they believe should have weighed heavily in determining reasonable bail conditions.
Judge Feika’s ruling came after the court rejected two property valuation bonds offered by Bundoo’s sureties. One property, valued at US$350,000, was found to have already secured approximately twenty other criminal bonds totaling more than US$2.4 million in prior obligations. A second property valued at US$240,000 was also rejected, leaving the court to conclude that the combined US$590,000 security was inadequate in light of the charges before it.
The court subsequently fixed bail at US$8 million and ordered Bundoo remanded until an acceptable bond meeting that threshold is approved.
Bundoo is among several former government officials indicted by the Assets Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force and the Ministry of Justice on allegations including money laundering, theft of property, misuse of public money, criminal conspiracy, and related corruption offences.
Like her co-defendants, she has pleaded not guilty, and the prosecution must still prove every allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.
The emergency petition now places the matter squarely before the Supreme Court’s Justice in Chambers, who must determine whether Criminal Court “C” remained within its lawful authority when it rejected the bond, denied the seventy-two-hour statutory period alleged by the defense, and imposed the US$8 million bail requirement.
The outcome could extend well beyond Bundoo’s individual case.
A ruling in her favor may redefine how trial courts handle defective criminal bonds and clarify constitutional limits on bail in complex financial crime prosecutions.
A decision affirming the lower court, however, could strengthen judicial discretion to impose substantially higher bond requirements in corruption and asset-recovery cases involving significant public funds.
For now, the criminal allegations remain pending, and the Supreme Court’s impending decision is expected to become one of the most closely watched legal determinations in Liberia’s ongoing campaign against alleged public corruption.
