-As City Court Orders Them to Justify Their Bail Bond or Face Rearrest
By: G. Bennie Bravo Johnson
The Monrovia City Court through its Stipendiary Magistrate, L. Ben Barco has ordered former House Speaker Cllr. Jonathan Fonati Koffa and Co-defendants to justify their bail bond or face immediate rearrest by Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., in the Capitol Building arson case.
“The defendants are hereby ordered to produce their sureties to justify their bond by tomorrow, June 24, 2025, at 9:00 am, or if they believe that the bond is not sufficient, to make the said bond sufficient. Otherwise, the bond will be set aside and the defendants will be rearrested consistent with our statute,” the magistrate declared. The order comes in line with a mandate from Criminal Court “A.”
The Presiding Judge of Criminal Court “A,” His Honor Roosevelt Z. Willie, on Thursday, June 19, 2025, 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 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 City Court accepted the lawmakers’ bond and released them on Monday, June 9, 2025, without hearing argument relating to it. An act which prompted the prosecution to file 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 the Criminal Court A’ for proper trial, following the preliminary hearing.
In his June 23, 2025 ruling, the magistrate referenced a Supreme Court opinion in The Intestate Estate of the late Sarah Sirleaf vs. El-Bim et al, noting that judges of inferior courts have no discretion but to comply with mandates from superior courts. The ruling, delivered by Magistrate Barco, emphasized the binding nature of the order from Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie of Criminal Court “A,” which directed the lower court to hear and determine the sufficiency of the bond filed by the defendants.
The court made it clear that failure to adhere to this directive would place the magistrate in contempt of a higher court. During the hearing, defense counsel for the accused moved the court to refuse jurisdiction over the prosecution’s exceptions to the bond, arguing that the matter had become moot. They claimed that Criminal Court “A” had previously considered the same issue and concluded that jurisdiction over the bond exception hearing rested with the Monrovia City Court.
Counsel further contended that the prosecution had effectively waived its right to challenge the bond by failing to proceed earlier, and that the court’s acceptance of human sureties in addition to the initial bail bond rendered the exceptions invalid. “These exceptions are no longer justified and valid,” the defense argued, praying the court to dismiss the prosecution’s filing.
In a rebuttal, prosecutors accused the defense of attempting to undermine the court’s authority and delay the proceedings. The state’s counsel described the defense’s submission as contemptuous and asserted that Judge Willie’s mandate explicitly instructed the City Court to assume jurisdiction for the bond hearing.
Prosecutors further alleged that the sureties listed in the bond were fictitious and that the defense was using legal technicalities to stall the process. They maintained that the documents were filed timely manner and accused the defense of misrepresenting the facts. Citing judicial precedent, they argued that the matter must proceed as mandated and urged the court to compel the defendants to present valid sureties or file a proper bond. The defense counsel meanwhile excepted to the ruling and announced their intention to take advantage of the law.
