-As The Court Denies Prosecution’s Bid to Revoke Their Bond
By: G Bennie Bravo Johnson, I.
Monrovia: In the ongoing Capitol Building Arson case, the Stipendiary Magistrate of the Monrovia City Court, His Honor L. Ben Barco has handed down an initial defeat to the Government, ruling in favor of former House Speaker Cllr. Jonathan Fonati Koffa and his three co-defendants. The Court denied the prosecution’s exception to the surety bond filed by the defendants.
The city court ruling is in adherence with a mandate from Criminal Court “A,”; instructing City Court to hear the prosecution’s exceptions to the bond and determine its sufficiency. Before the case been forwarded to the Criminal Court, the prosecution filed a motion before the city court praying the court to determine the surety of the criminal appearance bond and to have the defendant rearrested – if the surety to bond presented by the former house speaker and his co-defendants were insufficient to have them billed out of the Monrovia Central Prison while the case unfolds at the criminal court.
Following a mandate from the presiding judge of Criminal Court “A” – His Honor, Rosevelt Z. Willie for the City Court to determine the sufficiency of the defendants’ US$2.24 million bail bond, the City Court on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, heard arguments in the bond justification and on Thursday, June 26, 2025 ruled that the Court is satisfied with the properties offered to secure the criminal appearance bond are genuine and legitimate. “Therefore, the exception to the Criminal Appearance Bond filed by the Prosecution is denied, and the motion to justify is granted. This Court, having established that the sureties are authorized by law to serve as sureties on a criminal appearance bond, and the bond before Court not being an indemnity bond, and coupled with the fact that Defendants are all members of the House of Representatives representing different districts, the Court finds the sureties sufficient and hereby makes an appropriate endorsement of the said criminal appearance bond,” the court document states.
It continues: “WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, LEGAL CITATIONS AND ANALYSIS, the exception to the Criminal Appearance Bond filed by Prosecution is denied, and the motion to justify is granted. Defendants are hereby ordered temporarily released.”!The Court in her ruling said that it was satisfied that, the properties offered to secure the criminal appearance bond are genuine and legitimate since they were appraised and assessed by the Liberia Revenue Authority (LRA), as evident by its Tax Clearance. Judge Baco in his ruling added that Prosecution did not state any legal reliance. The law extant in this jurisdiction is that excessive bail is not required, as found in Article 21 (d) (i) of the Constitution of Liberia. Additionally, the bond proffered by the Defendants was not an indemnity bond but a criminal appearance bond, and the requirement is that a criminal appearance bond is for the day-to-day appearance of the defendant.
“On the face of the criminal appearance bond posted with this Court, the sureties guaranteed that they are binding themselves to produce the defendants before this Court to answer to the charges against them as per the writ of arrest, and that if convicted, the defendants will be surrendered to the custody of the Court to undergo the full sentence of the law. What this means is that the sureties only guaranteed the appearance of Defendants and not to indemnify them,” it reads.
The proceedings in the bond justification stem from an earlier City Court order issued on Monday, June 23, instructing Koffa and his co-defendants to justify the legitimacy of their bail or face immediate rearrest.
“The defendants are hereby ordered to produce their sureties to justify their bond… Otherwise, the bond will be set aside and the defendants will be rearrested consistent with our statute,” Magistrate Ben Barco declared in open court.
In compliance with the court’s directive, Hon. Koffa presented his daughters Ms. Jonda Janet Koffa – General Manager of United Command Inc., and Marjan Mona Koffa, as sureties for a US$1.8 million property bond. Koffa and his co-defendants had initially been released from the Monrovia Central Prison on June 9, 2025, after filing a combined bail package that included a US$440,000 criminal appearance bond—backed by the same two sureties—and the US$1.8 million property bond. That bond was accepted by the City Court without a formal justification hearing, prompting the prosecution to file exceptions questioning its sufficiency and the credibility of the sureties.
Rather than hearing arguments at that time, the City Court referred the matter to Criminal Court “A,” which subsequently remanded it back to Magistrate Barco for resolution. During Tuesday’s hearing, Magistrate Barco granted a motion by the defense to proceed with the qualification of the sureties listed in the original bond. Ms. Jonda Janet Koffa, the first witness, was sworn in and took the stand. She identified herself as the General Manager of United Command Inc. and a resident of 7th Street, Sinkor. She confirmed that she is one of the sureties and disclosed that she is the elder sister of co-surety Marjan Mona Koffa. She also stated under oath that she is personally acquainted with all four defendants.
Following her testimony, the defense moved for both oral and documentary evidence to be admitted into the court record. The court granted the request and formally entered the evidence into the proceedings.
The defense cited several provisions from Liberia’s Civil Procedure Law, particularly Chapters 25 and 63, along with relevant case precedents, to assert the legal adequacy of the bond. The prosecution, however, maintained its challenge, referencing Sections 63.1, 63.2, and 63.6 of the Civil Procedure Law and the Supreme Court decision in Griffith v. Wadan, 35 LLR. Prosecutors labeled the bond “bogus and worthless” and claimed the sureties were insufficient.
“The hearing today clearly shows that the defendants failed flatly and miserably to justify the ill-fated and frivolous criminal appearance bond,” state lawyers argued, urging the court to set it aside and rearrest the accused lawmakers. In response, the defense referenced the Supreme Court’s opinion in Jimmy Sumo, 37 LLR, stressing the constitutional rights of the accused and urging the court to uphold the bond already accepted. After hearing arguments from both sides, Magistrate Barco reserved his ruling and announced that a decision on the bond’s validity would be handed down by midday on Thursday, June 26, 2025.
The Capitol Building arson case continues to attract public and political attention—not only because of the high-profile individuals involved, but also due to the escalating legal back-and-forth over bond sufficiency.
Koffa, along with Representatives Seboe, Kamara, and Debee, stands accused of orchestrating the alleged arson attack on December 18, 2024, that damaged a wing of the Capitol Building. They have vehemently denied the charges.
The Liberia National Police alleged in its charge sheet that the fire was intentionally set to obstruct legislative activities and incite public panic. However, critics argue that the case lacks solid forensic and surveillance evidence, and that the charges were suspiciously filed shortly after Koffa was ousted from his position as Speaker of the House. The lawmakers were arrested just weeks after the Unity Party-led government took power—raising concerns about political motivation behind the prosecution.
The proceeding appears as a politically charged trial rather than a neutral criminal case in the eyes of the defense. The June 24 bond justification hearing brought those suspicions into sharper focus, with defense lawyers denouncing what they described as “targeted harassment.” Despite the original bond being accepted by the same court, state prosecutors now dismiss it as illegitimate.
Although Koffa presented family members with established professional and personal links to the defendants as sureties, the prosecution remains adamant about rearrest. Legal analysts note that the prosecution’s aggressive approach, despite precedent cited by the defense, raises questions about whether the case is more about political retribution than justice.
