The Magistrate of the Monrovia City Court at the Temple of Justice, L. Ben Barco, has ordered former Speaker Jonathan Fonati Koffa and three other lawmakers to either upgrade their bonds or face re-arrest within 24 hours. Representatives Koffa, Abu B. Kamara, Jacob C. Debee, and Dixon Seboe have been directed by Magistrate Barco to present their sureties to justify their bond or to set the bond aside. If they fail to comply, they will be re-arrested in accordance with the law.
Magistrate Barco’s decision follows a directive from Criminal Court “A” Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie, who instructed that the bond hearing be sent back to the magistrate for a determination of its sufficiency. On Monday, June 23, 2025, Magistrate Barco ruled that Judge Willie had explicitly stated that he (Barco) should hear the exceptions to the bond, determine its sufficiency, and then report back to the judge between now and Wednesday, June 25, 2025. This mandates that the court must comply, as failure to do so would constitute contempt, which the magistrate is unwilling to risk.
The City Court Judge cited a long line of Supreme Court opinions, including one in the intestate estate of the late Sarah Sirleaf vs. EL-Bim et al., dated July 15, 2013, which states that it is law in this jurisdiction for a mandate to guide inferior court judges, including this magistrate. “Therefore, the defendants are hereby ordered to produce their sureties to justify their bond by tomorrow, June 24, 2025, at 9 a.m. Alternatively, if they believe the bond is insufficient, they must make it sufficient; otherwise, the bond will be set aside, and the defendants will be re-arrested in accordance with our statutes.
Following the ruling, Koffa’s lawyers expressed their objection and pledged to utilize the controlling statute. During the argument, Cllr. Michael Wilkins Wright requested the court to deny jurisdiction over the exceptions filed by the prosecution, arguing that the exceptions have become moot since the case was transferred to Criminal Court “A.” He noted that the same application was made to the judge of that court, asserting that the Monrovia City Court had jurisdiction over the exceptions prior to Magistrate Barco’s final ruling on the preliminary examination, and that the prosecution had waived its right to have the exceptions heard.
Cllr. Wright further stated that the Judge of Criminal Court “A” had summoned the case to hear the exceptions; thus, the defense motion does not challenge the court’s jurisdiction in this matter. Instead, it questions the court’s ability to address the exceptions, claiming that these exceptions are no longer justified or valid. He urged the court to set aside, overrule, deny, and dismiss these exceptions on the grounds of mootness.
In response to the defense motion, state prosecution argued that it was an attempt to hold the defense lawyers in contempt. Cllr. Jerry Garlawolu, representing the state, emphasized that these are the same reasons the defense had earlier asked the judge of Criminal Court “A” to refuse jurisdiction, and which the judge ruled on, instructing the magisterial court to assume jurisdiction specifically for hearing the bond, the exceptions, and the motions filed to justify them.
The state prosecutors expressed surprise at the defense’s attempt to raise the same issue that the magisterial court had been mandated to address, concluding that this indicated the defense lawyers should be held in contempt.
They maintained that the sureties named in the bail bond proposed by the defendants do not exist, claiming that this is a crafty attempt to delay the bond hearing as mandated by Criminal Court “A.” The prosecution urged the court to take judicial notice of the records before it, stating that a party that files in a timely manner cannot suffer a waiver. The court itself should acknowledge the case file.
The state lawyers requested the court to deny the defense’s submission, require the defendants to bring their sureties, and if no sureties are available, to allow them to file the appropriate bond and request a special hearing regarding the bond.
