Monrovia – Government lawyers have requested Criminal Court C Judge Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay to set aside the bail bond filed by three of the indicted ex-officials of the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL).
Prosecution said the bail bond filed by defendants, David M. Farhai, Elsie Dossen Badio and Kollie Tamba, is insufficient to secure their day-to-day appearance in court to answer to the charges levelled against them by the State.
The defendants were indicted by the Grand jury of Montserrado County on June 8, 2020 along with other defendants as members of the CBL Board of governors.
They were charged with the commission of the crimes of Economic Sabotage, Theft of Property, Fraud on the Internal Revenue of Liberia among others.
Prosecution made the request to Judge Gbeisay through a petition titled: “Exceptions to Bail Bond” after the defendants filed their bail bond to the court.
“Prosecution says that under the statue and laws of Liberia, every bail bond must have a security for the fulfillment of the conditions of the said bail bond,” prosecution stated in the Bill of Exceptions. “In the instant case, the bail bond posted in favor of co-defendants David Farhai, Elsie Dossen Badio and Tamba Kollie is utterly defective for it lacks sufficient security that will guarantee the fulfillment of the the conditions of the said bail bond, contrary to the affidavit of surety tendered by the surety.”
In the motion, prosecution also argued that the bail bond filed by the defendants is insufficient to meet the legal requirements for the sufficiency of a bail bond under the Liberian law.
Prosecution further argued that the Supreme Court has opined in previous cases that for a bail bond to be sufficient, the surety must show evidence such as certificate or other legal instruments from an appropriate authority or insurance company that has assets sufficient to cover the bail bond.
But in the instant case, prosecution added that the Accident and Casualty Insurance Company Inc., which filed the bail bond for defendants has not shown any assets sufficient to cover the obligation, neither has it shown any assets sufficient to cover other bonds to which it is already serving as surety excluding the instant case at bar.
“Prosecution says that a bail bond in the case of Economic Sabotage should commensurate with the amount charged in the indictment. Hence, in order for the bail bond to be sufficient, it must be in the amount of money charged in the indictment guarantee with sufficient security to uphold the obligation contained therein. Prosecution, therefore, prays your honor to set the said bail bond aside until sufficient security is provided by the surety.” Prosecution argued.
Prosecution also maintained that there is no statement of account attach to the bail bond filed by the surety (Accident and Casualty Insurance Company Inc.) evidencing the capacity of the company’s abilityto underwrite its obligation under the bail bond.
“Further, had the surety attached its bank statement to the bail bond, it would have put the prosecution or the court in a better position to make a determination as to whether or not the corporation has a good financial standing to underwrite the amount (2.6 Billion) contained in the indictment; in event the co-defendants cannot live up to the terms and conditions of the bail bond,” the State argued.
Prosecution also stated that there is no reinsurance cover note attached to the co-defendants’ bail bond to lend any support to the sufficiency of the bond or to further enhance the ability of the surety to underwrite the value of the bail bond filed.
“Prosecution says that the company, as surety has filed numerous bail bonds to secure the release of many party defendants amounting to USD$1, 805,433.18 and which cases are still pending before other courts, so the said surety has the obligation to show assets to commensurate with the encumbrance it already has in the said pending cases plus additional assets to qualify as a surety in the present case.”
Meanwhile, Judge Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay has assigned the hearing of the prosecution’s motion for Wednesday, June 24.