The Special Commercial Court has held the Monrovia Oil Trading Corporation (MOTC) legally liable for the unauthorized withdrawal of US$3,244,100.78 from the corporate account of Ducor Petroleum Inc., ending a decade-long corporate battle and restoring businessman Amos Brosius as the sole owner of the company.

By Victoria G Wesseh

In a landmark ruling delivered on Friday, September 18, Special Commercial Court Judge U-Jay W. H. S. Bright ordered MOTC to account for the millions withdrawn from Ducor Petroleum’s Account at the Liberia Bank for Development and Investment (LBDI) and dismissed MOTC’s claim to a 90 percent equity stake in the company.

The ruling not only orders restitution but also opens the door for additional damages against MOTC.

A Decade-Long Dispute

The dispute traces back to July 2013, when Commercial Court Judge Eva Mappy Morgan ordered the freezing of Ducor’s LBDI Account No. 0221215153401.

According to court filings by Brosius, the freeze order was lifted just days later without his knowledge, enabling MOTC to withdraw over US$3 million from the account.

The complaint was escalated to the Judiciary Inquiry Commission (JIC), which initially found Judge Morgan liable for unethical conduct in her handling of the matter.

The Supreme Court of Liberia later reversed that finding and exonerated her.

MOTC has consistently rejected Brosius’s Account, maintaining that only US$212,704.36 was ever held in escrow by mutual agreement at Afriland Bank.

The case remained in legal limbo for years. On August 3, 2021, Brosius’s legal team filed a Bill of Information accusing MOTC of illegally withdrawing US$3.3 million from the Ducor LBDI account.

That Bill was denied on September 13, 2021 by a panel comprising Judges Chan Chan A. Paegar, Othello S. Payman I and Roosevelt Z. Willie [Ad Hoc], who ruled that the matter was subsumed under an ongoing audit.

The deadlock was broken when Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay appointed Judge Bright to preside over a Special Commercial Court to conclusively hear the matter.

The US$3.24 Million Finding

Acting under its Order of August 5, 2026, Judge Bright took the extraordinary step of subpoenaing all commercial banks that held Ducor Petroleum accounts between 2013 and 2018.

What the bank statements revealed, the Court noted, was a “massive movement of cash.”

After a forensic review of the accounts, the Court made a definitive financial finding:

“As of 2018, the total sum withdrawn from LBDI Account No. 0221215153401 was USD $3,244,100.78.”

In its operative order, the Court declared:

“MOTC is hereby held liable for the amount of USD $3,244,100.78 withdrawn from Account No. 0221215153401 held at the LBDI.”

In a related order, the Court ordered the immediate release and return to Brosius of seven checks totaling US$212,704.36 that had been seized from him and placed in escrow at Afriland First Bank Liberia Ltd.

Crucially, the Court did not cap Brosius’s remedy at US$3.24 million. It expressly ruled that “Mr. Brosius is further permitted to institute additional legal actions against MOTC for all other proceeds and injuries sustained in his individual or corporate capacity,” leaving MOTC exposed to further claims for lost profits and damages from other accounts.

Sole Ownership Restored

Closing the ownership dispute that has dogged Ducor Petroleum for years, Judge Bright issued a Final Declaration of Fact:

“There are sufficient pieces of evidence in the records to convince any reasonable mind that Mr. Amos Brosius is the only person that financed and invested in Ducor Petroleum Inc., and is the only legitimate shareholder of Ducor Petroleum Inc.”

The Court, therefore, declared: “This Court hereby declares Mr. Amos Brosius the sole owner of Ducor Petroleum Inc., and his corporate status in the said company is hereby restored with immediate effect. Costs are ruled against MOTC.”

The ruling effectively nullifies any competing claim to the company and restores Brosius’s full corporate authority to operate, manage, and represent Ducor Petroleum Inc. both locally and internationally.

Court Dismantles PKF Audit Report

The most far-reaching portion of the judgment was Judge Bright’s systematic dismantling of the findings of international audit firm PKF, which had formed the accounting foundation of MOTC’s claim to 90 percent ownership.

At issue was the interpretation of a September 7, 2005 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and the US$7,663,507.36 liability PKF claimed Brosius owed MOTC.

The PKF Claim: Fuel as Equity

According to Section 16.1.13 of the PKF Audit Report, MOTC would finance Ducor’s operations by providing petroleum products for Ducor’s customers. PKF argued this was the “practical equivalent” of cash financing.

“In exchange for enabling Ducor to obtain the petroleum products that Ducor needs to stay in business as a distributor of petroleum products, the parties agreed to give MOTC a ninety percent [90%] equity stake in Ducor,” PKF concluded.

The Court Says: No

Judge Bright called the conclusion “highly erroneous.”

He noted that only MOTC, its lawyers, and the PKF auditors recognized this novel concept of “equity financing,” while Brosius had “consistently and vehemently rejected” it.

Under the MOU, Brosius insisted, MOTC was expected to pay in cash, check, or bank remittance for the transfer of the 90% shares — not in fuel.

Citing Liberian Supreme Court precedent that “where the language of an agreement is plain and unambiguous, its interpretation shall be based upon its plain meaning,” Judge Bright ruled that the term “financier” has a clear legal definition: “a person who controls the use and lending of large amounts of money” or “the act or process of raising or providing funds.”

“By adding the adjective ‘equity’ to create ‘equity financing,’ the PKF auditors and MOTC cleverly added an extrinsic flavor that completely changed the ordinary meaning of ‘financier’,” the judge ruled.

“The Court declared the PKF modification a reversible error and reversed it.”

Applying the objective test of reasonable interpretation from *CFAO Liberia Ltd v. Cooper et al. 39LLR 511 *, the Court held that MOTC failed to meet the condition precedent for share ownership because it never provided cash financing. [1999]

The Court further found no corporate evidence to support MOTC’s ownership claim: No share certificate was ever issued in favor of MOTC. No stock ledger entry. No board resolution crediting shares.

“Nowhere in the Ducor Petroleum Article of Incorporation is MOTC named, referenced, listed, or included,” Judge Bright ruled.

In what legal observers are calling a strong anti-takeover dictum, Judge Bright warned:

“It is the candid opinion of this Court that anything contrary to its position… would expose shareholders to hostile corporate high-jacking orchestrated by corporate officer or executive… who does not have a share certificate and are not mentioned in the Articles of Incorporation as shareholders.”

He added: “Position is not ownership. Management is not equity.”

US$7.66 Million Liability Rejected

On whether Brosius is liable to MOTC for US$7,663,507.36, the Court’s response was “a resounding no.”

“There is no proof in the records showing such liability,” Judge Bright held. “On the contrary, the records show Brosius did in fact invest in Ducor Petroleum Inc., while MOTC did not provide the requisite financing contemplated under the MOU.”

The Court pointed to a detailed schedule of investments Brosius submitted from his personal resources and personal bank accounts, including Joy Corporation:

Storage Infrastructure: 500-gallon capacity storage tank, US$1,500 [Jan. 28, 2006] for Ducor facility at Jamaica Road.

Power & Operations: 75KVA generator, gas pump and office furniture valued at US$1,425 [July 2007].

Leasehold: Prepaid rent totaling US$20,500 for Ducor offices at Jamaica Road Junction, Bushrod Island, covering Feb. 2006 to May 2011; zinc US$1,040, electrical materials US$540 and steel rods US$98 for office improvements.

Fleet: Three vehicles totaling US$46,000 — Toyota Land Cruiser SUV [US$30,000], Mitsubishi Montero SUV [US$8,000] and Isuzu Rodeo SUV [US$8,000], plus registration.

Major Financing: A US$338,000 loan facility obtained in 2008 to finance Ducor’s operations, secured by Brosius’s personal real estate.

Ignored Evidence

In its most damning finding, the Court accused PKF of deliberately ignoring critical primary evidence: Transfer Orders, Delivery Orders, LPRC Truck Loading Orders, MOTC Credit Invoices, and commercial bank statements in the name of Ducor/MOTC.

Those documents had been subpoenaed by Criminal Court “C” for Montserrado County, where Brosius was prosecuted — at MOTC’s instigation — for allegedly diverting over US$1 million from Ducor’s account. He was later exonerated of all charges including theft and economic sabotage.

The subpoenaed documents were sourced from LPRC, Liberia Agriculture Company [LAC], Firestone Plantation Company, Forest Ventures, LBDI, First International Bank, Ecobank, Global Bank, IB Bank, and GT Bank.

In Sections 16.27.9 – 16.27.10 of its report, PKF had dismissed Brosius’s request to investigate those documents as “unreasonable, impracticable and a complete waste of time” because they were too voluminous and “would require whole pickup-load.”

Judge Bright countered that on December 26, 2013, Judge Peter W. Gbeneweleh had meticulously referenced some of the same delivery/loading orders and bank statements in his ruling acquitting Brosius.

“All of the pieces of evidence from Criminal Court ‘C’, particularly the unrefuted testimony of Mr. Amos Brosius as to his investment, and the testimony of Mr. Charles Carron acknowledging Amos Brosius investment, are too weighty and convincing to be ignored or watered-down,” Judge Bright stated.

Implications

Legally, the judgment reaffirms Liberia’s adherence to the four-corners doctrine of contract interpretation, signaling to foreign and domestic investors that courts will not rewrite clear commercial agreements with creative accounting theories.

Commercially, the case touches a sensitive nerve in Liberia’s petroleum downstream sector, where distributorships like Ducor have long depended on larger traders like MOTC for product. The Court’s insistence on cash-for-shares as distinct from product-supply-on-credit draws a sharp line between a supplier-creditor relationship and an equity-owner relationship — a distinction that could reshape how future joint ventures in the oil and gas sector are structured.

For now, the ruling clears Amos Brosius of the US$7.6 million claim, holds MOTC liable for US$3.24 million and effectively nullifies MOTC’s claim to 90% ownership of Ducor Petroleum Inc.

Monrovia – Former Executive Mansion Chief of Protocol Nora Finda Bundoo is making another legal effort to secure her temporary release, filing a new criminal appearance bond backed by two insurance companies after the Criminal Court “C” rejected two previous attempts to satisfy its bail requirements.

By Victoria G Wesseh and Willie N. Tokpah 

The latest move places Bundoo’s constitutional right to bail and the State’s demand for adequate security at the center of a continuing legal battle before Criminal Court “C,” presided over by Assigned Circuit Judge Ousman E. Feika.

Court records show that Bundoo has not abandoned her effort to comply with the court’s requirements. Instead, following the rejection of two earlier bond arrangements, her legal team turned to insurance companies licensed to issue criminal appearance bonds in Liberia.

For Nora Finda Bundoo, the fight for temporary freedom has become a legal journey marked by repeated setbacks, escalating financial requirements, and yet another challenge from the State.

The former Executive Mansion Chief of Protocol is now before Criminal Court “C” seeking approval of a new criminal appearance bond after two previous attempts to secure her release were rejected.

This time, Bundoo has turned to two insurance companies, Accident and Casualty Insurance Company and American Undertakers Group International Insurance Company (AUG, in what appears to be another effort to meet the court’s requirements and regain her liberty while she awaits trial.

But once again, the prosecution has objected.

The development has placed Bundoo in an increasingly difficult position. She must defend herself against serious criminal allegations while simultaneously finding a way to satisfy a bond requirement that the court has set at US$8 million.

The situation is becoming bigger than the value of a bond for her defense.

It is about whether bail, which is intended to secure an accused person’s appearance in court, is being transformed into an obstacle so difficult to overcome that it effectively keeps an accused person behind bars before trial.

Two Attempts, Two Rejections

Bundoo’s present predicament follows two previous attempts to secure her release.

The first bond was set aside by Judge Ousman E. Feika after the court found that the proposed sureties were insufficient and did not meet the legal requirements to file the bond.

The court then gave Bundoo 72 hours to present another criminal appearance bond.

She did.

Two sureties, Kai Garlo Farley and John Moses Gbetee, submitted property valuation bonds on her behalf. Again, the prosecution objected.

On July 21, Judge Ousmam Feika ruled on the property-backed guarantees and set the bond threshold at US$8 million.

That ruling for Bundoo dramatically changed the challenge before her.

The issue is no longer simply finding individuals willing to stand as sureties. She is now confronted with a financial threshold running into millions of United States dollars.

However, rather than abandoning her effort to secure release, Bundoo’s legal team searched for another lawful mechanism, which produced the latest insurance-backed bonds.

A Different Route to the Same Goal 

ACICO and AUG subsequently filed separate criminal appearance bonds for Bundoo.

The move can be viewed as an attempt to address concerns surrounding the earlier property valuation bonds by relying instead on insurance companies licensed by the Central Bank of Liberia to issue criminal appearance bonds, but the State has again objected.

The prosecution argued that the latest bonds remain inadequate and do not sufficiently satisfy the statutory objectives of bail under Section 13.2 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

Bundoo’s lawyers disagree, arguing that bail is intended to accomplish two fundamental things: to prevent unnecessary pretrial incarceration while ensuring that an accused person remains within the jurisdiction of the court and appears whenever required.

Bubdoo’s position goes to the heart of her struggle, and she is not asking the court to terminate the criminal case against her, but asking to face the allegations while temporarily outside detention.

The defense argued that if bail is intended to guarantee an accused person’s appearance, the amount should be set at a level that an accused person has little realistic ability to meet.

Bundoo’s lawyers argue that although the court has discretion in determining the sufficiency of bail, that discretion should not result in a bond so excessive that it exceeds the accused’s financial capacity.

For Bundoo, the US$8 million threshold is therefore not merely a number on a court document.

It represents a potentially formidable barrier between her and temporary liberty.

After two earlier bonds were rejected, the latest prosecution objection means she faces yet another hurdle in an already prolonged effort to secure release.

The State’s Pursuit Under Scrutiny

The government’s prosecution of Bundoo is being conducted through the Assets Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force, AREPT, and the Ministry of Justice.

The State has a legitimate responsibility to prosecute allegations of financial crimes and to ensure that defendants appear before court.

But the intensity with which Bundoo’s release has been contested also raises questions about proportionality.

Bundoo stands indicted on allegations including money laundering, theft of property, misuse of public money and records, criminal conspiracy, forgery and criminal facilitation.

The allegations are serious, but an indictment is not a conviction.

Under Liberia’s legal system, Bundoo remains entitled to the presumption of innocence unless the prosecution proves the allegations against her beyond a reasonable doubt.

That principle becomes particularly important when an accused person is fighting for temporary liberty.

The purpose of bail is not to determine guilt.

It is to ensure that the accused remains available to answer the charges.

Bundoo’s lawyers said she can satisfy that obligation without remaining incarcerated, provided the court accepts an adequate and legally compliant bond.

A Woman Fighting Through the System

Whatever the outcome of the criminal prosecution, Bundoo’s latest legal maneuver demonstrates that she continues to use the judicial process available to her.

After the rejection of the first bond, she returned with another. After the second was challenged and rejected, her lawyers turned to licensed insurance companies, and after the latest bonds were challenged, she returned to court to justify them.

For Bundoo, the process has become a test of endurance as much as a legal contest, as each rejected bond means another delay, each new requirement means another financial and legal challenge, and each prosecution objection keeps the question of her temporary liberty alive.

Court Must Balance Both Sides

The court now faced the delicate task of balancing two competing interests.

On one side is the State’s responsibility to ensure that an accused person does not evade justice and that any criminal appearance bond provides meaningful security, and the other is Bundoo’s right to be presumed innocent and, where legally appropriate, to obtain bail on reasonable terms while defending herself.

The court’s decision on the ACICO and AUG bonds could therefore become another significant moment in Bundoo’s prolonged battle for release.

For now, the former Protocol Chief remains caught between a US$8 million judicial threshold and a State determined to challenge the latest attempt to meet it.

“Justice Is Not a Favor; It Is the Foundation of the State”

By Victoria G. Wesseh

BARCLAYVILLE, Grand Kru County — Resident Judge George Gbeneweleh of the 12th Judicial Circuit Court in Grand Kru County has declared that Liberia’s courts must reclaim their constitutional responsibility as promoters of justice, protectors of fundamental rights and guardians of the rule of law.

Judge Gbeneweleh made the assertion Monday while delivering his charge at the formal opening of the August Term of Court in Barclayville, where he spoke on the theme, “The Court as Promoter of Justice.”

The judge’s address went beyond the customary opening of a court term, focusing on judicial independence, constitutional rights, due process and the judiciary’s role in maintaining peace in a post-war society.

The Law Is the Command

Judge Gbeneweleh grounded his charge in the Revised Judicial Canons of Liberia, particularly Canon Eight, which states that courts exist to promote justice and serve the public interest and that judges must administer justice with speed and care.

He also cited Judicial Canon Nine, which places a duty on judges to uphold and support the Constitution and laws of Liberia and to fearlessly observe and apply fundamental rights and guarantees.

For Gbeneweleh, those provisions impose more than an administrative obligation on judges.

He argued that a judge who delays justice, yields to outside influence or disregards violations of constitutional rights risks failing in the judiciary’s fundamental responsibility.

Justice as the Foundation of the State

“The sole reason for the court’s existence is to serve the public interest,” Judge Gbeneweleh said. “Justice is the foundation of a peaceful and democratic nation, like Liberia.”

He identified three central responsibilities of the judiciary: protecting the rights of citizens, defending the Constitution and laws of Liberia, and safeguarding the rule of law.

The judge said the judiciary’s role has become increasingly important as Liberians continue to rely on the courts to resolve disputes that could otherwise threaten social stability.

He pointed to land disputes, concession-related conflicts, corruption cases, electoral disputes and human rights complaints as matters that require credible judicial resolution.

According to Gbeneweleh, the ability of courts to resolve such disputes fairly is essential to Liberia’s sustainable peace.

Three Pillars of Justice

The Grand Kru judge outlined what he described as three pillars supporting the court’s responsibility to promote justice.

First, equality and due process.

Gbeneweleh referenced Articles 11 and 20 of the 1986 Constitution, which guarantee fundamental rights and protections, including due process.

He said those guarantees require that individuals be given an opportunity to be heard, access to legal representation and impartial consideration based on the law and evidence.

The judge stressed that justice must be administered without discrimination based on status, ethnicity, nationality, political affiliation or other considerations.

Second, protection of fundamental rights.

Gbeneweleh described the judiciary as a shield for citizens against unlawful actions by the state.

He urged judges and magistrates to remain vigilant in protecting citizens from illegal detention, excessive use of police authority and violations of property rights.

He said holding violators accountable should not be viewed as vengeance but as a means of deterrence and a constitutional obligation.

“A court that tolerates rights violations becomes complicit in them,” he warned.

Third, the promotion of peace.

For Gbeneweleh, the judiciary’s contribution to peace is best demonstrated through impartial adjudication rather than political speeches.

He warned that when citizens lose confidence in the courts, they may resort to self-help, mob violence, trial by ordeal and other forms of “jungle justice.”

But when disputes are fairly resolved through legitimate judicial processes, he said, confidence in the state and the rule of law is strengthened.

Judicial Independence Is Non-Negotiable

One of the strongest elements of the judge’s address was his defense of judicial independence.

“Respect for judicial independence is cardinal for the court to always promote justice,” Gbeneweleh said.

He urged judges to decide cases solely on the basis of law and evidence, without fear or favor.

He cautioned against political pressure, financial inducements from litigants and public pressure generated through social media or other platforms.

The judge also appealed to citizens to respect judicial processes rather than resort to violence, land grabbing or trial by public sentiment.

He said respect for court authority should not be understood as personal loyalty to judges, but as respect for the rule of law that ultimately protects every citizen.

A Warning Against Mob Justice

Gbeneweleh’s remarks come amid continuing concerns about the use of extrajudicial methods to resolve disputes in Liberia.

He argued that the judiciary must remain accessible and credible enough to convince citizens that the courts offer a legitimate alternative to retaliation and self-help.

Where the courts fail to command public confidence, he warned, the consequences can extend beyond individual disputes and threaten broader social stability.

His message was therefore directed both at the judiciary and the public: judges must uphold the law independently, while citizens must channel grievances through lawful institutions.

Invoking Denning and Marshall

In closing his address, Judge Gbeneweleh invoked two influential figures in the common law tradition.

He referenced the late English jurist Lord Denning, known for his emphasis on the court’s duty to do justice between parties.

He also cited John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, whose decision in Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review and reinforced the role of courts in protecting constitutional supremacy.

Gbeneweleh linked those principles to Liberia’s own constitutional order, particularly Article 2 of the 1986 Constitution, which establishes the Constitution as the supreme and fundamental law of Liberia.

His central message from Barclayville was clear: the judiciary is not merely a forum for settling disputes.

It is a constitutional institution charged with ensuring that justice is administered fairly, rights are protected and the rule of law remains the foundation of Liberia’s peace and democratic order.

“Justice is not a favor,” the judge’s charge emphasized in substance. “It is the foundation of the state.”

“When Leadership Turns Personal, Institutions Bleed,” Judge Says

By Victoria G. Wesseh

MONROVIA — Circuit Judge J. Kennedy Peabody has warned against the use of government authority to punish criticism, dissent or perceived political disloyalty, arguing that when personal interests begin to drive administrative decisions, public institutions suffer.

Judge Peabody delivered the warning during the formal opening of the 15th Judicial Circuit in River Gee County, where he spoke about the dangers of resentment, revenge and intolerance in the exercise of public authority.

His remarks focused particularly on what he described as “thin-skinned leadership” — a style of governance in which criticism is interpreted as a personal attack and independent voices are treated as threats.

“Leadership with a thin skin — the kind of leadership that considers every disagreement an insult, every criticism an attack, and every independent voice an enemy — is dangerous to a democracy,” Peabody told members of the legal community, traditional leaders and county officials.

The judge said occupying a position of authority does not, by itself, amount to effective leadership. He argued that true leadership is demonstrated by how those in power respond to criticism and disagreement.

“Leadership is not merely the possession of authority. It is the discipline required to exercise authority responsibly,” he said. “True leadership is revealed not by how a leader treats those who praise him, but by how he treats those who disagree with him.”

When Administration Becomes Retaliation

Judge Peabody said the danger becomes more serious when government officials use legitimate administrative powers for personal reasons.

He cited situations in which employees or citizens who criticize government officials could subsequently face transfers, demotions or other forms of administrative action because of their views or perceived association with critics of those in power.

“Imagine, for example, an employee or citizen who points out the ills of an official of government,” Peabody said. “Because that employee has expressed an opinion, or because he is perceived as being associated with someone who has criticized the leader, there is suddenly an organizational realignment from his county to another county, or a demotion.”

While such actions may formally be described as transfers, reassignment or restructuring, the judge cautioned that their legality can depend on the purpose for which the authority was exercised.

“The power to realign should serve the institution, not personal resentment,” he said.

Peabody maintained that administrative discretion must be exercised for legitimate institutional purposes, including efficiency, service delivery and the proper deployment of personnel, rather than as a means of settling personal or political scores.

Constitutional Boundaries

The judge linked his argument to broader constitutional principles governing the exercise of public power, including protections against abuse of office, guarantees of due process and constitutional protections for freedom of expression.

He argued that government officials cannot rely solely on the existence of administrative authority to justify decisions if those powers are exercised for improper purposes.

“The power to realign should promote efficiency and must be guided by transparency, merit, and the needs of the agency — not fear,” Peabody said.

He added that disciplinary authority should be used to protect institutional integrity rather than punish employees who maintain independent views.

“The power to discipline should protect institutional integrity, not become a weapon against those who refuse to surrender their conscience,” he emphasized.

The judge further warned that punitive administrative actions against employees for expressing constitutionally protected views could have consequences beyond the individual affected.

According to Peabody, such actions can create a climate in which public employees become reluctant to speak openly or raise concerns about government performance.

“When the personal ego of the officeholder becomes the operating policy of the institution, institutions bleed,” he warned.

Democracy Beyond Elections

Judge Peabody also placed his concerns within Liberia’s broader post-war governance experience, arguing that democratic governance cannot be measured solely by the conduct of elections.

He said successive administrations have faced the challenge of maintaining professional public institutions while resisting the temptation to use government positions and administrative powers for political patronage or punishment.

Frequent transfers, dismissals and demotions based on perceived political loyalty, he suggested, can undermine the professionalism and independence of the civil service.

Such practices, he warned, risk eroding institutional memory, weakening employee morale, politicizing public services and undermining public confidence in government.

“The state is permanent. The officeholder is temporary,” Peabody said. “When we personalize institutions, we weaken the state to strengthen the ego.”

His remarks in River Gee have broader implications for Liberia’s governance debate, particularly as the country continues to grapple with questions of accountability, institutional independence and the proper limits of executive and administrative authority.

For Judge Peabody, the central issue is not whether public officials have authority, but whether that authority is exercised within the bounds of law and for the public good.

“Retaliation disguised as administration is still retaliation,” his argument suggests, and in a constitutional democracy, public power must serve institutions rather than individual interests.

Contempt proceedings have been initiated at the Debt Court of Montserrado County against the management of the Liberia Electricity Corporation and the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning over alleged non-compliance with a final judgment of US$415,327.08 in favor of ELTEL Network Liberia.

By Victoria G Wesseh

The proceedings were triggered by a Bill of Information filed by ELTEL, asking the court to compel enforcement of its February 4, 2026 payment order.

According to court records, on July 7, 2026, the Debt Court issued show-cause summonses ordering LEC Managing Director Mohammed M. Sheriff and other senior LEC executives to appear before the court to explain why the judgment remains unsatisfied.

In its latest filing, argued last week, ELTEL is also asking the court to extend the show-cause action to include Finance and Development Planning Minister Augustine Kpehe Ngafuan, on grounds that the Ministry is the fiscal agent for payment of judgments against state-owned enterprises.

The court has not yet made any finding of contempt against Minister Ngafuan or MD Sheriff. A show-cause summons is not a conviction – it is an order to appear and explain.

Why ELTEL Filed For Contempt

According to ELTEL’s petition, LEC acknowledged liability for the debt on February 3, 2026, and on February 4, 2026, the court entered judgment for US$415,327.08. The court said the sum comprises an arbitral award of US$364,322.00 plus statutory interest, attorney’s fees and court costs.

ELTEL alleges the amount has not been paid more than five months later.

Counsel for ELTEL further alleged in court that the matter was referred to the Executive Mansion and that on July 3, 2026, President Joseph Nyuma Boakai, Sr. directed the Ministry of Finance to intervene to satisfy the judgment. That alleged directive has not been independently verified by this paper, and no public response from the Ministry on that specific allegation is on the court record as of press time.

On that basis, ELTEL is praying the court to find willful disobedience and to impose contempt sanctions.

Sanctions under Liberian law for civil contempt may include a fine, an order for coercive imprisonment until the contempt is purged by payment, or other enforcement orders. Such sanctions are discretionary and are imposed only after due process.

The Debt Court is expected to decide whether to grant a final enforcement ultimatum – such as a 72-hour order for the US$415,327.08 to be transferred to the court’s escrow account, or set a full contempt hearing date where Minister Ngafuan and MD Sheriff would be required to appear personally or through counsel to show cause.

Both officials remain entitled to the presumption of compliance until the court rules otherwise, and to present their defense.

The case file shows the underlying dispute stems from a 2016 contract for low-voltage materials that ELTEL alleges it supplied to LEC. The original suit was filed in June 2024 through Attorney-in-Fact Hans Armstrong.

MONROVIA –The Supreme Court of Liberia  says Emmanuel Hilter embarrassed the judiciary after filing complaint against a magistrate who exposed him.

By Victoria G Wesseh

Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, Sr. has permanently barred Emmanuel Hilter, a City Solicitor assigned at the Ministry of Justice from practicing law in any court across the Republic of Liberia.

The Chief Justice ruled that Hilter falsely and knowingly presented himself as a licensed Counselor-at-Law and appeared in court to represent clients despite having no valid license to practice law in Liberia.

The order, handed down after a judicial investigation, prohibits Hilter from appearing before any Liberian court in his capacity as City Solicitor until he can prove he is duly qualified and licensed by the Liberia National Bar Association and the Supreme Court.

The case began not as an investigation into Hilter, but as a complaint filed by Hilter against Magistrate Naomi Crusoe.

According to the findings of the inquiry, Magistrate Crusoe had refused to allow Hilter to represent a client before her court, demanding that he produces  his valid Supreme Court License – a standard requirement for any lawyer appearing in Liberia.

Instead of complying, Hilter filed a formal complaint against the magistrate, accusing her of denying his client legal representation.

Chief Justice Gbeisay took up the matter and ordered an investigation. During the inquiry, the case took a dramatic turn.

Under questioning, Hilter admitted that he had indeed been appearing in court as a lawyer and representing clients even though he was not a licensed Counselor-at-Law.

“Embarrassed the Judiciary”

In his ruling, Chief Justice Gbeisay said Hilter’s conduct was a gross violation of the rules governing the legal profession and an embarrassment to the entire Judiciary.

The Chief Justice noted that a City Solicitor is a critical representative of the State and must by law be a qualified lawyer.

To appear without a license undermines public confidence in the justice system and constitutes the unauthorized practice of law – a punishable offense.

He, therefore,  ordered that Hilter be barred from practicing in all courts in Liberia and that the Ministry of Justice be notified to take appropriate administrative action.

Magistrate Also Faulted

While vindicating Magistrate Crusoe for challenging Hilter’s credentials, the Chief Justice also found fault with her handling of the underlying case.

The investigation noted that the matter before Magistrate Crusoe was a property dispute involving Hilter’s client.

The Chief Justice observed that rather than summarily dismissing the representation, the magistrate should have held a proper hearing on the merits of the property dispute to protect the client’s interest, even while refusing Hilter’s appearance.

The dual ruling is being seen as a strong warning from the Gbeisay Bench on two fronts: zero tolerance for unlicensed practice within the Ministry of Justice and a demand for due diligence and procedural fairness from magistrates.

Implications for Justice Ministry

The decision throws a spotlight on vetting procedures at the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for assigning City Solicitors to prosecute and defend cases on behalf of the Government of Liberia.

Legal practitioners say the ruling should prompt a full audit of all solicitors and public defenders to ensure they hold current licenses issued by the Supreme Court of Liberia.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Justice and the Liberia National Bar Association could not be reached for comments up to press time.

Monrovia – A legal battle over a disputed parcel of land in the Hotel Africa Community has intensified after prominent Liberian businessman Dr. C. Nelson Oniyama accused Public Works Minister Roland Lafayette Giddings of making public statements that could prejudice ongoing proceedings before the Civil Law Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County.

By Victoria Wesseh, victoria.wesseh@frontpageafricaonline.com

Dr. Oniyama, General Manager of Monrovia Breweries Inc. and proprietor of the Sea View Golf Club in Virginia, says comments made by Minister Giddings during a July 21 appearance on Prime FM’s Prime Morning Drive violated the principle of fair trial by publicly declaring him an unlawful occupant before the court has ruled on the ownership dispute.

The case remains pending before the Civil Law Court.

Allegations of Prejudicial Remarks

According to Dr. Oniyama’s legal team, Minister Giddings publicly declared that the businessman has no legal ownership of the property.

“Nelson Oniyama’s property will not stay. It will be taken from him. He doesn’t own it. He didn’t buy it,” Giddings said during the radio interview.

The minister further stated that the government would repossess the property regardless of whether the matter was before the courts, arguing that the land forms part of the Hotel Africa property and remains government-owned.

Dr. Oniyama’s lawyers contend that the minister’s remarks amount to a public pronouncement on issues currently before the judiciary.

“Such sweeping and unproven utterances by a senior government official not only undermine the records before the court but also expose Dr. Oniyama to public ridicule and damage his hard-earned reputation,” a source close to the legal team said.

Dispute Dates Back to 2025

According to court documents cited by the defense, the dispute began on October 6, 2025, when officials of the Ministry of Public Works allegedly entered property occupied by the Sea View Golf Club, marked structures with the inscription “MPW Remove,” and planted cornerstones around portions of the land.

Dr. Oniyama’s lawyers said they immediately informed the ministry that their client held legal title to the property and submitted supporting deeds. However, they allege that Minister Giddings responded that demolition would proceed despite the documents presented.

Dr. Oniyama subsequently filed a Petition for Judicial Review before the Civil Law Court challenging the ministry’s actions. According to his lawyers, the court ordered the removal of the cornerstones, but the judicial review remains pending.

A separate lawsuit was later filed on June 22, 2026, when the General Services Agency (GSA), together with the Ministry of Justice, petitioned the Civil Law Court to cancel Dr. Oniyama’s deed.

The government argues that the transaction did not comply with legal requirements and was never vetted by the Public Procurement and Concessions Commission (PPCC).

Oniyama Defends Ownership

In his court filings, Dr. Oniyama rejects the government’s claims, maintaining that he lawfully acquired the property through the Liberia Land Authority under the Land Rights Act and the Liberia Land Authority Act.

His legal team argues that his rights to the property originated long before the current dispute. They point to a January 20, 2004 lease agreement executed by the Ministry of State for Presidential Affairs covering 5.58 acres in the Hotel Africa area and a subsequent authorization allowing golf activities on adjoining land.

The defense further maintains that the government later issued a Development Grant Deed supporting the establishment of the Sea View Golf Club, Liberia’s only 18-hole international-standard golf course.

Lawyers also dispute allegations that the acquisition should have been subject to PPCC procurement procedures, arguing that Dr. Oniyama’s legal interest predates the commission’s establishment and therefore falls outside its requirements.

They additionally reject claims that he acquired approximately 100 acres, insisting all transactions involving the property were lawfully conducted through the Ministry of State for Presidential Affairs.

Government Defends Repossession Plan

Minister Giddings has defended the government’s decision to reclaim the Hotel Africa property, insisting that the land remains public property reserved for future national development.

Speaking on Prime FM, he maintained that no one other than the President has the authority to convey public land and argued that the deed presented by Dr. Oniyama lacks legal validity because former President George Weah did not sign it.

“Nobody conveys public land besides the President. President George Weah didn’t sign that deed. So it is not for him, and he is not going to own it,” Giddings said.

The minister said the government intends to apply the law equally in recovering public land.

“If we are going to break ordinary people’s property down, there is no exception. He is not an exception. Whether he goes to court or not, the government will repossess the land,” he said.

Giddings disclosed that demolition activities around the Hotel Africa property have been delayed until the dry season following intervention from lawmakers. He said affected occupants would receive movement allowances to assist with relocation but emphasized that such payments should not be interpreted as compensation for ownership.

The minister also argued that the Hotel Africa property has long been subjected to illegal occupation and unauthorized sales by individuals without lawful ownership, adding that the government intends to preserve the land for future investment.

Rule of Law Concerns

Dr. Oniyama’s legal team argues that beyond the ownership dispute, the case raises broader concerns about respect for the rule of law and the doctrine of sub judice, which discourages public officials from making statements that could influence pending judicial proceedings.

“It is regrettable that a minister in a government that professes adherence to the rule of law can publicly pronounce on matters awaiting judicial determination,” the legal team said.

They maintain that Minister Giddings’ public declaration that Dr. Oniyama does not own the property effectively presumes the outcome of litigation that remains before the Civil Law Court.

The ownership dispute remains unresolved, with both the judicial review and the government’s petition to cancel Dr. Oniyama’s deed awaiting determination by the court.

MONROVIA – The Monrovia City Court has issued an arrest warrant for Congo Town Used Car Dealer, Aaron Morgan, accused of stealing US$7,500 from the sale of a client’s vehicle, according to court documents obtained by FrontPage Africa.   

By Victoria G Wesseh

The warrant, signed last month, stems from a private criminal complaint filed by Amandu Bah in June 2026.

Bah alleges that in April 2026 he entrusted Morgan with a white Nissan Rogue to sell on his behalf for US$7,500.  

According to the filing, Morgan sold the vehicle but never turned over the proceeds. The complaint further claims the dealer subsequently abandoned his Congo Town Business Premises and converted the funds for personal use.  

The arrest warrant, a copy of which was reviewed by this paper, directs law enforcement to apprehend Morgan immediately for prosecution.  

“You are hereby commanded to arrest the living body of Aaron Morgan, to be identified, defendant and forthwith bring him before this Court for immediate prosecution,” the document states.

“He is wanted by this Honorable Court on the Charge of Theft of Property but has absconded and placed himself into hiding.”  

The court order adds that if Morgan is arrested after working hours, he should be “detained at the nearest police cell to be brought before the Monrovia City Court the next working day.”  

Morgan faces one count of Theft of Property under Section 15.51 of Liberia’s New Penal Law. Under Liberian law, theft of property valued above US$1,000 is classified as a second-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison if convicted.  

As of press time, the Monrovia City Court has not confirmed whether Morgan has been arrested or entered a plea. Court officials could not be reached for comment Friday evening.  

The defendant remains presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  

Attempts to reach Aaron Morgan for comment were unsuccessful. The business location in Congo Town listed in the complaint appeared closed when visited late Friday.  

If arrested, Morgan will be arraigned before the Monrovia City Court where he will be formally advised of the charge and given the opportunity to enter a plea.

The private prosecutor, Amandu Bah, would then be required to present evidence to support the allegation.  

The Liberia National Police have not yet issued a public statement on the status of the search for Morgan.

MONROVIA – The Supreme Court of Liberia has reserved ruling to lift its stay order on the Capitol Building Arson Case, which decision if released would allow Criminal Court “A” to resume proceedings.

By Victoria G Wesseh

The Court’s move follows its review of a writ of prohibition filed by Jonathan Fonati Koffa and co-defendants, challenging Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie’s decision to disband the entire jury panel earlier this year.

How the trial stalled

On December 18, 2024, fire gutted sections of the Capitol Building, triggering national shock and a sweeping investigation.

State prosecutors on December 29, 2025 filed a motion to dissolve the jury, alleging jurors “overstepped” by directly questioning the prosecution’s key witness, Reafel Wilson.

Prosecutors argued the panel was “contaminated” and incapable of an impartial verdict.

Judge Willie on January 2 granted the motion, ordered the dissolution of the entire jury panel and suspended the matter until the next term of court.

Defense lawyers immediately announced an appeal to the Supreme Court and requested a bail for all defendants.

Associate Justice Yussif D. Kaba on March 2 issued a writ of prohibition, ordered Judge Willie to appear for a chambers conference on March 5 and halted all proceedings pending review.

The Supreme Court’s review

Koffa and eight co-defendants argued that dissolving the jury mid-trial was “irregular” and would disrupt proceedings.

In comments outside the Court on March 5, Koffa compared the move to “restarting a football match midway through the game” and questioned the fairness of disbanding a jury when the prosecution claimed to have “overwhelming evidence”.

Charges and defendants

The December 2024 blaze led to indictments for arson, criminal conspiracy, attempted murder and related felonies.

Charged alongside Koffa are Representatives Dixon W. Seboe, Abu B. Kamara, Jacob C. B. Debbie, Christian Kofa, John Nyanti, Eric Susay, Thomas Isaac Etheridge, and Stephen Broh.

Jury controversy: What sparked it

The prosecution’s motion centered on a December 22 exchange where a juror asked for a replay of November 10, 2024 video footage and questioned whether a person in the video was defendant Thomas Etheridge.

Prosecutors said the questioning suggested jurors were consulting among themselves.

Defense counsel countered that the prosecution was using “delay tactics” and that disbanding the entire panel was “unprecedented, unconstitutional and dangerous for the integrity of jury trials in Liberia”.

Earlier, Judge Willie had already removed juror Antoinette Mulbah over her role as a Congress for Democratic Change(CDC) Coordinator, citing concerns about bias.

With the Supreme Court’s stay may be lifted, prosecutors must now decide whether to reseat a jury and proceed with evidence they previously described as “overwhelming”.

Defense lawyers maintained their clients will prevail once evidence is presented.

MONROVIA – The Sixth Judicial Circuit Civil Law Court of Liberia has ordered the compulsory transfer of a prime Sinkor property formerly used by the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) to Liberian businessman Dr. C. Nelson Oniyama, ending a protracted legal battle over the land’s ownership.

By Victoria G Wesseh

In a final ruling issued Monday, June 8, Assigned Circuit Judge Nelson B. Chineh directed the Intestate Estate of the late Martha Stubberfield Bernard along with its administrator Ebrima Dempster to convey ten lots of land located along Tubman Boulevard to Dr. Oniyama.

The property sits directly opposite the Cuttington Graduate School in Sinkor and was previously a facility associated with the former ruling CDC party.

The decision stems from a petition for specific performance filed by Dr. Oniyama.  He argued that he had met all obligations under a purchase agreement for the property but was not given title by the Bernard Estate.

According to the court’s findings, evidence showed that Dr. Oniyama paid US$132,000 for the land. Judge Chineh ruled that two separate Memoranda of Understanding executed between the parties formed a “valid and legally enforceable contract’’.

The court held that the estate’s failure to transfer ownership after receiving full payment constituted a breach of the agreement, warranting judicial intervention.

Judge Chineh, therefore, ordered the estate and its administrator to “immediately execute all necessary legal documents” to transfer ownership of the ten lots to Dr. Oniyama in line with the terms agreed upon. The property occupies a strategic location on Tubman Boulevard in Monrovia’s Sinkor district. Given its size and visibility, it is considered one of the more notable real estate assets in the area.

For years it served as a facility linked to the CDC, which governed Liberia from 2018 to 2024.

Monday’s ruling brings closure to a longstanding dispute over the land.

Legal observers note that the decision reinforces the judiciary’s authority to compel specific performance when parties fail to honor binding contractual obligations.

Representatives for the Intestate Estate of Martha Stubberfield Bernard has announced an appeal before the Supreme Court.