-In Rivercess County
By Jerromie S. Walters
Rivercess County: The Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Court in Rivercess County has handed down a 50-year prison sentence to 43-year-old Saah Bundor for the statutory rape of two minor girls, aged 9 and 11. Presiding Judge Wesseh Alphonsus Wesseh Sr. delivered the verdict on June 26, 2025, following a trial that laid bare the horrific details of the assault that occurred in Solo Village on May 24, 2025.
“WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the unanimous guilty verdict of the Trial Jurors is hereby upheld, affirmed and confirmed; and that Defendant Saah Bundor is therefore adjudged guilty of Crime of Statutory Rape and is therefore sentenced to FIFTY (50), same to be served at the National palace of Corrections, Zwedru, Grand Gedeh County or at the Monrovia Central Prison. Meanwhile, the Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the Authority of the Cestol Central Prison to continue to hold Defendant Bundor pending his transfer to the National Palace of Corrections or the Monrovia Central Prison,” the court document reads.
Rape and other forms of violence against women remain at its peak in Liberia. The Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection reported that Liberia recorded 2,759 Sexual and Gender based violence from January to October 2024. In this case, the perpetrator, Saah Bundor, age 43, was indicted by the Grand Jurors for Rivercess County on June 6, 2025, on allegation of Statutory Rape. The Indictment substantially alleged that on May 24, 2025, Bundor had devious sexual intercourses with two minors children; RN, age 9 and BB, age 11, in Solo Town (Solo Village), thereby causing them to bleed from their vaginas.
According to the indictment, the incidence occurred during the time the minor children went out to the nearby dumpsite to ease themselves; there and then, perpetrator Bundor closely followed them and then he commandeered the two children and took them to the nearby bush, where he had sexual intercourses with them, and thereafter he gave them the amount of LRD1, 000.
The indictment also alleged that after Bundor sexually abused the minors, and gave them the money, they returned home and then RN turned the money over to her mother and that after few days, information concerning the alleged rape was widely spread in the town before he fled the area, but he was later arrested by the Community Police Team, during the morning hours of the next day and turned over to the Liberia National Police in the area.
Nevertheless, this case was advanced on the trial docket to be had during this term of court; and when perpetrator Saah Bundor was arraigned in open court, on Tuesday, June 10, 2025, during the 26th day jury sitting, he pleaded NOT GUILTY to the indictment, thereby joining issues with the Prosecution. Subsequently, the fifteen-man trial jury was summoned, selected, and empaneled to sit on this case to hear the facts.
During this trial, the Prosecution produced seven (7) general witnesses, in person of: RN, BB, Officer Emmanuel Madeh, and Mrs. Lucia Speare; and two rebuttal witnesses, in person of RN and BB. The Prosecution’s first witness RN, testified before the court and jury that she lived with her mother in Solo Village. She further stated that on Saturday, May 24, 2025, she and her friend, Victim RN, went out to the dumpsite to attend to nature, and also said that while they were easing themselves, Bundor emerged from behind them and used the word “advice”.
This survivor continued her testimonies and said that she asked the perpetrator what he meant by the word “advice”, since according to her, she did not understand the word “advice”. She said that the perpetrator told her and RN to follow him, and then he took them to the thereby bush and then asked her whether she had ever had sexual intercourse before, but she told him, “no”. The survivor then said that the defendant knocked her to the ground and then she slapped him in his ear and then he bent her down and inserted his penis into her vagina and started to have sexual intercourse with her.
She continued and stated that she started to cry; and that after he finished having sex with her, she was left lying on the ground. The survivor said l he turned on survivor BB, who slapped him in his ear but he then bent her down and inserted his penis into her vagina and also had sexual intercourse with Victim BB.
This survivor then concluded her testimony before this court and the jurors that after the perpetrator finished abusing them sexually, he gave them LRD1000 in an apparent attempt to buy their silence.
However, the survivor said she turned the money over to survivor RN, who refused to hold the money on ground that her (BB) father was a difficult person to deal with and then she took the money home and gave it to her. She said her mother then asked her about the source of the money and told her mother that it was the perpetrator who gave them the money.
This survivor then testified on the next day, while she was sitting home, she started to scratch inside her vagina and blood and water stated to flow from inside her vagina, which she said her mother noticed and then she told her mother that the perpetrator had sexual intercourse with she and her friend, Victim BB, when they went out to the dumpsite to defecate.
The survivor took her mother to where the incident occurred; but she said by then, the perpetrator had run away from the area, but was later arrested and taken to ITI; and they were all brought to Cestol for the case and treatments. Medical evidence presented during the trial confirmed the girls suffered severe physical trauma, including broken hymens and vaginal lacerations, with attending nurse Lucia Speare from St. Francis Hospital testifying to observing “brown fluids, foul smells, and clear signs of penetration” during her examination of the survivor l.
Police investigator Emmanuel Mandeh revealed that Bundor initially claimed to have been drunk and suggested the money might have fallen from his pocket, a defense the court found implausible given the consistent testimonies of the victims and physical evidence. The defense argued that Bundor was merely passing by while ill and never interacted with the girls but it was dismissed by Judge Wesseh as uncorroborated and inconsistent with the overwhelming evidence.
Rape is a felony of the first degree wherein the victim is less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense and the actor is 18 years or older and the maximum sentence for a first degree pare is life imprisonment with minimum of ten years. This court therefore noted that the act of the defendant is graded a first degree rape. This court also took note of the general sentencing regime, as provided for in section 50.5(a); (sentence to death or imprisonment); which says” a person who has been convicted a first degree may be sentenced as follows: a) for a felony of the first degree to life or life imprisonment where such penalty is specified by statute; or where not specified to a definite term of imprisonment to be fixed by the court, the maximum shall be ten years.
“Giving the above, and regarding the sentence to be imposed on this defendant, in a first degree rape case; and in this case where the victims are between the ages, 9 and 11, years old, this court says the Prosecution indicted Defendant Saah Bundor for allegedly having dual sexual intercourse with two minor children, between the ages, 9 and 11. During the trial, the evidence adduced by the State satisfactorily established the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant’s action perpetrated against the pair is tantamount to mass rape and reminiscent of the dark days in Liberia; as such his callous behaviors was a breach of his fiduciary to the victims,” the judge pointed out.
However, he continued: “this courts find it impossible, if not impracticable to give the maximum(life) sentence, in this case since there is no Probation Serviced of the Ministry Justice to have investigated the past conduct of the defendant; which would have served as a guidepost in mitigating or aggravating circumstances, as such this court calls on the Ministry of Justice for establishment of Probation Services, in the rest of the country, where such service is not available, so as to aid courts in making future sentencing decision.
This court therefore holds no doubt that the jurors’ unanimous guilty verdict returned against the defendant shall remain permanent and continue to exist perpetually until reversed by the final arbiter of justice.”
