MONROVIA – Ernree Neeplo’s conviction by Criminal Court ‘C’ is facing backlash after court records show the Liberia Business Registry gave false information that helped secure her guilty verdict.
Mrs. Neeplo, a former Program Manager at the Planned Parenthood Association of Liberia (PPAL), was found guilty of diverting $38,200 meant for youth center renovations between 2013 and 2018. But the court’s ruling is now being questioned amid mounting evidence that government testimony at the center of the case was incorrect.
During the trial, the Liberia Business Registry (LBR) told the court that a company called IT FastTrack—allegedly involved in the disputed transactions—was never legally registered. This assertion played a major role in the court’s decision to convict Neeplo.
However, business documents reviewed by The Liberian Investigator show that IT FastTrack has been a registered entity in Liberia since March 12, 2013, under sole proprietor Sam Tucker. The company’s valid business certificate contradicts the LBR’s courtroom testimony and raises serious concerns about the integrity of the judicial process.
“The registry’s statement was not only wrong—it was decisive,” said a legal source close to the case. “It shaped the judge’s perception and ultimately contributed to a conviction.”
The timeline further complicates matters. Public records confirm that Neeplo was not married until March 2014—almost a year after IT FastTrack’s April 2013 transaction with PPAL. This detail undercuts any implication of a conflict of interest between Neeplo and the company.
Even more puzzling is that IT FastTrack had conducted business with multiple government institutions, including the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission—the very agency that later led the prosecution against Neeplo.
At the heart of the case, prosecutors accused Neeplo of diverting project funds to purchase an SUV for PPAL’s Executive Director. Yet, multiple witnesses—including PPAL’s current Officer-in-Charge—testified that 12 of the 15 targeted youth centers were successfully renovated. Photographs of the completed renovations from that period were also submitted as evidence.
PPAL’s internal policy indicates that Neeplo had no authority to approve major financial transactions. Only the Board could authorize disbursements above a certain threshold. Furthermore, the Executive Director testified in court that she used $10,000 of her own funds and available administrative balances to purchase the vehicle in question.
During a forensic audit in 2020, auditors found only one laptop from 2013 in PPAL’s inventory, a detail that raised eyebrows in the courtroom. But IT experts say it is unrealistic to expect any organization to still retain eight-year-old computers, noting that most devices depreciate and are replaced every three to five years.
Another controversial component of the verdict is the court’s order that Neeplo repay $2,500 for catering services provided by J&D Catering, a business owned by her mother. Court documents confirm that Neeplo properly declared her relationship with the vendor and recused herself from the procurement process. PPAL’s then-Chairman also testified that the catering service was delivered in full and described the food as “good.” Despite this, the catering company has not been paid by PPAL to date.
“Punishing someone for services that were rendered and received makes no legal or moral sense,” said a defense attorney.
Perhaps most troubling is PPAL’s failure to produce critical documents from the 2013–2018 period—the very years under review in the case. When Neeplo’s legal team requested the records, PPAL provided unrelated documents from 2010 to 2012, citing a lack of resources to retrieve the relevant files.
“Somehow, they found older documents that weren’t requested, but not the ones central to the case,” said a courtroom observer. “That’s not a mistake—it’s obstruction.”
As the case advances to the Supreme Court on appeal, legal analysts and rights groups are demanding a deeper investigation into how such discrepancies were allowed to shape a criminal conviction.
“When a government agency provides false testimony that leads to a person’s imprisonment, it’s no longer about one case—it’s about whether our justice system is functioning fairly at all,” said a civil society advocate.
Discussion about this post