On Wednesday, April 22, 2026, at the Temple of Justice, the Resident Judge of Criminal Court “A” significantly ruled in the ongoing criminal proceedings involving former Liberian economist Samuel P. Jackson, with the court granting the defendant’s Bill of Information, dismissing the prosecution’s challenges to his bail, and ordering the return of his personal property.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie asked the Sheriff for clarification regarding the prosecution’s claim that it had already transferred all of Jackson’s belongings. Confirming, the Sheriff said the items, including five mobile phones, two HP laptops, passports, an immigration permit, and keys, had indeed been turned over to the court, dismissing Jackson’s lawyers’ claims of the items still in the state lawyers’ possession.
Judge Willie noted a critical inconsistency in the prosecution’s position: while admitting it had possession of the defendant’s property and had relinquished it to the court, the prosecution simultaneously requested that the defendant’s Bill of Information be denied. Relying on established Supreme Court precedent in Shaheen vs. Occidentale (13 LLR 278), the court held that a party cannot both deny and admit the same claim; such inconsistency, the court emphasized, renders the argument legally defective.
The Judge in his ruling said that the prosecution’s admission strengthened the defendant’s claim that his property had been withheld even after the conclusion of investigations. Consequently, Judge Willie granted Jackson’s Bill of Information and ordered the Sheriff to release the listed items to him. Additionally, the court directed that any barricade placed on the defendant’s property be removed.
The prosecution had challenged Jackson’s Property Valuation Bond, arguing that it was inadequate and lacked an affidavit of sureties. However, Judge Willie in the court records showed that the bond was indeed accompanied by the required affidavit, dismissing these objections as unfounded, affirming that the bond met all legal requirements under Liberia’s Criminal Procedure Law.
To ensure the defendant’s compliance, the court highlighted several safeguards already in place that Jackson is required to report weekly to the Sheriff’s office, three human sureties have been verified and documented, a writ of Ne Exeat Republica has been issued to prevent him from leaving the country, and all travel documents, including passports, remain in the court’s custody.
Judge Willie ruled that these measures sufficiently guarantee the defendant’s appearance, which is the primary purpose of bail. The Judge further ruled that the prosecution failed to comply with statutory requirements in challenging the bond.
Under Section 13.4.2 of the Criminal Procedure Law, exceptions must be filed and served on both the defendant and the surety within three days. In this case, although the bond was approved on April 9, 2026, the prosecution served its exceptions on April 15 beyond the allowable period when accounting for working days.
Moreover, the prosecution failed to serve the surety altogether. The court held that these procedural lapses alone warranted dismissal of the prosecution’s exceptions. In its final ruling, the court dismissed the prosecution’s exceptions to the bail bond
affirmed the validity of the defendant’s Property Valuation Bond, granted the defendant’s Bill of Information, ordered the return of all seized property, and mandated the continued enforcement of existing bail conditions. After the Judge’s ruling, one of the prosecution’s counsels noted an exception to the ruling.
The dispute arose after Jackson filed a Bill of Information accusing the prosecution of unlawfully retaining his personal belongings and maintaining restrictions on his property despite concluding its investigation. The prosecution countered that the matter was moot, asserting that the items had already been turned over to the court. The court ultimately found that the prosecution’s own admissions undermined its argument, paving the way for a ruling in favor of the defendant. The case continues as proceedings move forward, with the court’s latest decision reinforcing procedural compliance and the protection of defendants’ rights within Liberia’s criminal justice system.
