Peach Bility, one of the sons of Nimba County District #7 Representative Musa Bility was on yesterday released from detention at the Monrovia Central Prison based on the bond filed before Judge A. Blamo Dixon. Peach Bility got his temporary freedom after the current Supreme Court’s Chamber Justice, Associate Justice Ceaineh Clinton-Johnson’s immediately intervention.
Justice Clinton-Johnson got directly involved with Bility’s issue, after the defense lawyer, Cllr. Wilkins Wright filed for an alternative writ of certiorari, to be issued on Judge Blamo Dixon of Criminal Court ‘C’ ruling that sent Bility back to jail, though Dixon had earlier released him from the Monrovia Central Prison, after he had approved his bond. Clinton-Johnson instructed Dixon to unconstitutional released Bility, which he did on yesterday without any hesitation. On Tuesday, February 25, 2025, during a hearing of the case, though all of the lawyers were aware, Bility’s lawyer did not attend the trial. This was brought to Dixon’s attention by the prosecution.
Immediately after Dixon noticed that he unilaterally set aside his bond, and remanded him at the Monrovia Central Prison Compound. According to the judge, the action to not have unnecessary excuses from the lawyers that would delay the case. Bility’s lawyer absence was perceived by the judge as an attempt to delay the criminal case from the commencement of trial, and Dixon unilaterally set aside the defendant’s bond before reminding him at the Monrovia Central Prison Compound, until his lawyer can appear. Bility had repeatedly argued that his lawyer was out of the country and might not have been readily available for the commencement of trial within the next two days, the defendant, though in prison, managed on the next day, Wednesday, February 26, 2025, and retained the legal services of Cllr. M. Wilkins Wright as additional Counsel, to ensure that the trial of the case is no longer delayed. Cllr. Wright however assured the defendant that he was ready to proceed with the trial. Immediately after Wright took over the case as additional lawyer, he filed a Motion praying Judge Dixon to kindly rescind his previous ruling committing the defendant to prison. Wright also informed Dixon that there was no further need for him to remain incarcerated but should be released on bail for the trial to proceed at the earliest time convenient, especially so where defendant’s bond was never challenged or excepted to by the prosecution. This, Wright argued was because defendant has always maintained himself and respected the terms and conditions of his bond and was never delinquent. Unfortunately, when the judge scheduled the motion hearing, the prosecution did not oppose or resist it, but the Judge, on his own, ruled denying it (motion), and said that the defendant will remain in prison until otherwise other. It was based on Dixon’s decision that Cllr. Wright filed the writ of certiorari to correct and possibly reverse the judge’s ruling. But, according to Wright, setting aside the bond was unwarranted, unjustified, prejudicial and illegal because, first of all the crimes with which Bility was charged are bailable offensives; secondly, the bond was duly approved by Dixon, and was never challenged by the prosecution from the day when it was approved and served and so remains even until today. Thirdly, Wright argued that Bility was required to appear at the court once a week until the trial is concluded, which condition he had observed, performed and strictly obeyed from the day his bond was approved until the day it was unilaterally set aside by the Judge. “The defendant being sent to prison and his bond unilaterally set aside by the Judge was unprovoked, and in the lawyer’s opinion was arbitrary and prejudicial to his client interest, in that, the only reason given by the Judge was that the absence of defendant’s s Lawyer was an attempt to delay the trial,” Wright argued. ” Due to no fault of his, he was merely a victim of circumstances, and perhaps of perceived anger and transferred aggression of the Judge toward his lawyer being absent,” the writ noted. For this reason, Wright argued that the defendant incarceration was harsh and oppressive, and therefore Certiorari willlie to correct the wrongful action of Dixon. In a significant move, Presiding Chamber Justice, at the Supreme Court, Ceaineh Clinton-Johnson on yesterday ordered the unconditional released of defendant Peach Bility, son of Nimba County District #7 Representative Musa Bility from the Monrovia Central Prison. Justice Clinton-Johnson got involved with Bility’s case, when the defense lawyer, Cllr. Wilkins Wright’s asked her to intervene, through a writ of certiorari. In the writ, Cllr. Wright argued that Judge Blamo Dixon of Criminal Court ‘C’ on Tuesday ,February 25, 2025, during a hearing of Bility’s drug related and illegal possession of firearm case, the judge unilaterally set aside his bond, and remanded him at the Monrovia Central Prison Compound. Judge Dixon’s action was as a result of Bility’s lawyer failure to show up at the trial, which the judge sees as an attempt to delay the case. The drama started, after Judge Dixon scheduled the case for hearing on February 25, with the date being endorsed by the defense and the prosecution. But, unfortunately, when Dixon call to start the case, he was surprisingly informed by the prosecutors about Bility’s lawyer absent. Bility’s lawyer absence was perceived by the judge as an attempt to delay the criminal case from the commencement of trial, and Dixon unilaterally set aside the defendant’s bond before reminding him at the Monrovia Central Prison Compound, until his lawyer can appear. Because his lawyer was out of the country and might not have been readily available for the commencement of trial within the next two days, the defendant, though in prison, managed on the next day, Wednesday, February 26, 2025, and retained the legal services of Cllr. M. Wilkins Wright as additional Counsel, to ensure that the trial of the case is no longer delayed. Cllr. Wright however assured the defendant that he was ready to proceed with the trial. Immediately after Wright took over the case as additional lawyer, he filed a Motion praying Judge Dixon to kindly rescind his previous ruling committing the defendant to prison. Wright also informed Dixon that there was no further need for him to remain incarcerated but should be released on bail for the trial to proceed at the earliest time convenient, especially so where defendant’s bond was never challenged or excepted to by the prosecution. This, Wright argued was because defendant has always maintained himself and respected the terms and conditions of his bond and was never delinquent. Unfortunately, when the judge scheduled the motion hearing, the prosecution did not oppose or resist it, but the Judge, on his own, ruled denying it (motion), and said that the defendant will remain in prison until otherwise other. It was based on Dixon’s decision that Cllr. Wright filed the writ of certiorari to correct and possibly reverse the judge’s ruling. But, according to Wright, setting aside the bond was unwarranted, unjustified, prejudicial and illegal because, first of all the crimes with which Bility was charged are bailable offensives; secondly, the bond was duly approved by Dixon, and was never challenged by the prosecution from the day when it was approved and served and so remains even until today. Thirdly, Wright argued that Bility was required to appear at the court once a week until the trial is concluded, which condition he had observed, performed and strictly obeyed from the day his bond was approved until the day it was unilaterally set aside by the Judge. “The defendant being sent to prison and his bond unilaterally set aside by the Judge was unprovoked, and in the lawyer’s opinion was arbitrary and prejudicial to his client interest, in that, the only reason given by the Judge was that the absence of defendant’s s Lawyer was an attempt to delay the trial,” Wright argued. ” Due to no fault of his, he was merely a victim of circumstances, and perhaps of perceived anger and transferred aggression of the Judge toward his lawyer being absent,” the writ noted. For this reason, Wright argued that the defendant incarceration was harsh and oppressive, and therefore Certiorari willlie to correct the wrongful action of Dixon.”
