-To Validate Their Bond
By: G Bennie Bravo Johnson, I
The Presiding Judge of Criminal Court “A,” His Honor Roosevelt Z. Willie, has remanded the arson case involving former Speaker Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa and Representatives Dixon Seboe, Abu Kamara, Jacob Debee II versus the Government back to the Monrovia City Court. The transfer aims to allow Magistrate Ben L. Barco to determine the validity of the criminal bond filed by the accused.
Judge Willie’s decision came in response to a motion from the prosecution, requesting the Criminal Court to entertain arguments over the legitimacy of the bond securing the release of the defendants from prison.
Cllr. Koffa and his co-defendants were released from the Monrovia Central Prison after posting a combined bond totaling US$ $2.24 million.
This amount comprised a US $440,000 criminal appearance bond backed by sureties Jonda Janet Koffa and Marjan Mona Koffa, and a US $1.8 million property bond—both previously approved to guarantee their appearance throughout the legal process. The Liberia National Police (LNP) values the damage of the alleged arson attack at $8.6m.
WomenVoices Judiciary reporter confirms that the City Court accepted the lawmakers’ bond and released them on Monday, June 9, 2025, without hearing argument relating to it. Now, the prosecution filed an exception to the bond at the City Court, challenging its adequacy. The City Court, rather than hearing arguments on the matter, transferred the case to Criminal Court “A” for further proceedings.
Before the Criminal Court “A,” the defense team requested that the exception be quashed. They argued that since the exception to the bond was filed at the magisterial level and the magistrate issued a final ruling without acting on the exception, the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to decide on its validity.
“The records show that Magistrate Ben L. Barco did not hear arguments on the exception but instead rendered final judgment and transferred the case. As a result, the exceptions are now moot and ineffective, and the defendants’ bond should remain in force,” the defense maintained.
The defense also noted that the preliminary examination was argued a day before the magistrate’s ruling, and though the prosecution filed the exception on the same day, they failed to notify the magistrate or schedule a hearing on the bond, thereby waiving their right through procedural neglect.
In response, the prosecution argued that the law grants them three working days to challenge a bond and that their June 15, 2025 filing was in compliance, given that the deadline fell on a non-working day. They insisted that the Circuit Court retains jurisdiction to hear arguments on the exception, despite the prior transfer.
In his ruling, Judge Willie clarified that while a circuit court may not hear a bill of exception transferred from a magisterial court unless legally appealed, the City Court Magistrate erred by not addressing the exception prior to transferring the case. Although the defense’s motion to quash was denied, Judge Willie stressed that only the magistrate had the legal authority to hear the matter initially.
“The Circuit Court cannot and will not hear a matter that was not properly brought before it. Therefore, the bill of exceptions and the party resistance are returned to the Magistrate,” Judge Willie ruled. He ordered the City Court to hear arguments in the exception to the bond between June 20 and 24, 2025.
