Prosecution lawyers have requested Criminal Court ‘A’ Judge, Roosevelt Z. Willie, to re-arrest former House Speaker Jonathan Fonati Koffa, a lawyer by profession, and other lawmakers recently released in an arson case.
The lawmakers are arrested for their alleged roles in the December 18, 2024, burning of the Capitol Building, a citadel of powers.
Prosecution have argued that the bond filed for the release of the defendants does not meet the legal requirements as contained in law books.
According to the lawyers, the bond submitted by the lawmakers’ legal team is “invalid under Liberian law, and should not have been accepted in the first place.”
As a result, they have urged the court to revoke the release and order the lawmakers back to jail at the Monrovia Central Prison until a “proper and legally sufficient bond is filed and approved.”
The matter is currently under review by the court, which will determine whether the bond stands or if the lawmakers must return to jail pending the resolution of the case.
Meanwhile, Judge Willie, has ordered his clerk to send the bail bond back to the Monrovia City Court Magistrate L. Ben Barco.
Magistrate Barco is to determine as to the ‘sufficiency or insufficiency’ of the bond.
Judge Willie, meanwhile, ordered the clerk also report back to the court on Wednesday, June 25, 2025.
He said, the court cannot, and will not, hear a matter that is not properly venue before it.
He said, the court will return the matter to the magisterial court for the hearing of only the exception of the ‘bail bond’ that was filed before it, and the resistance thereto.
Willie ordered the magistrate to conduct the hearing between Friday, June 20, and conclude on Tuesday, June 24, to forward the result to the court.
However, following Judge Willie’s statement, one of defense counsels, Wilkins Michael Wright, refused the magisterial court jurisdiction over the exception to the bond.
Wright told the court that the exception was filed and venue before Magistrate Barco, and same was not passed upon by him and were included in the records before transferring the case to Criminal Court ‘A.’
He argued that because Magistrate Barco did not act on the exception filed by the state lawyers, and forwarded the case to court ‘A,’ it is the contention of the defendants that the exceptions to the bond are none effective for which the defendants bond should be allowed and “these exception set aside.”
“Under our practice and procedures, when records are forwarded from the magistrate to the circuit court, the circuit court acts, commencing from the findings of an indictment against the defendants and the issuance by the circuit court of its own Writ of Arrest based on the indictment,” Cllr. Wright pleaded.
He argued that since the magistrate did not act on the exceptions to the defendants’ bail bond, the defendants respectfully contend that their bond should be allowed, especially where sureties have already been summoned to appear in court and thereby giving consent to the defendants’ criminal appearance bond.
Also, one of government lawyers, Richard Scott, resists the application made by the defendants’ lawyer and requesting Judge Willie to deny and dismiss the defendants’ application placed on record.
Cllr. Scott stated that it is the law that upon posting of a bail bond by the defendants’ lawyers, the prosecution has three days within which to except to said bond, as per the defendants own argument; the three days’ time allotted fell on Thursday, June 12, 2025, which the prosecution complied with.
“Criminal Court “A” received the file and has justification to entertain arguments and to rule as to the validity or invalid of the criminal appearance bond filed by Koffa, and et al.