The office of former Montserrado County District #3 lawmaker, Ceebee Barshell, has publicly refuted allegations made by Madam Zoe Ice Henries, accusing him of child abandonment.
In a statement issued Tuesday, February 25, 2025, Barshell’s office condemned the accusations made by Ms. Henries, which were aired on various media outlets and her social media platforms, stating that the former lawmaker had failed to provide support for his son.
The statement described Madam Henries as a “liar,” “hustler,” and a “political mercenary” and expressed frustration over her ongoing attempts to tarnish Barshell’s reputation. The controversy arose from allegations regarding financial and child support disputes between Barshell and Henries. Madam Henries, who has two children from their relationship, Matue (24) and Godwin (11), accused Barshell of neglecting his financial obligations and ignoring a court order for child support.
However, Barshell’s office has strongly rejected these allegations, describing them as unfounded, adding that Henries demanded financial support from Barshell for personal business expenses and her son’s trip to the Arsenal Football Academy in France; when Barshell declined to meet her additional financial requests, she allegedly resorted to threats and disparaging remarks.
The statement made it clear that Barshell has provided financial support for his children, including depositing funds for school fees and other necessary expenses. A receipt dated February 7, 2025, was presented as evidence of a deposit made by Barshell in compliance with a court order for child support. The office emphasized that all payments were documented and that there was no reason for any further legal action regarding his financial responsibilities.
The statement also questioned Henries’ motives and her continued public accusations against Barshell. “What does Zoe Henries want to achieve?” the statement said, casting doubts on her credibility and raising concerns about her behavior since their first meeting in Ghana in 1995.
Additionally, the office pointed to records showing that rent had already been paid, contradicting Henries’ claims of unpaid rent. They sought clarity on the true reasons behind her accusations.
Barshell’s office accused Madam Henries of trying to embarrass their client and his family, suggesting that her actions were politically motivated in an attempt to gain personal advantage.
As tensions between the two parties continue to escalate, the legal dispute over child and financial support is apparently set to continue in court, as Barshell’s office says it remains resolute in defense against what it describes as false accusations and baseless claims.
