Finda Bundoo Asks Supreme Court to Void US$8 Million Bond, Calls Jailing Order Unconstitutional

Published: July 22, 2026

MONROVIA — Former Executive Mansion Chief of Protocol Nora Finda Bundoo has petitioned the Supreme Court to eliminate an US$8 million criminal bond, which her lawyers argue is unconstitutional, claiming that the amount is excessively high and unfairly targets her among more than 48 individuals charged in the same corruption case.

The bond set on July 21 by Criminal Court ‘C’ Judge Ousman F. Feika covers the full amount Bundoo is accused of helping to misappropriate. In the same ruling, Feika denied her motion to justify her sureties and ordered her immediate detention at Monrovia Central Prison, a decision she is now contesting before the Supreme Court through a petition for a writ of prohibition.

Bundoo argues that the bond violates Article 21 of the 1986 Constitution, which guarantees the right to bail and prohibits excessive bail and punishment. Her attorneys claim it is discriminatory to require US$8 million from one defendant when more than 48 co-defendants are charged together, and they challenge the idea that a criminal appearance bond should match the amount allegedly stolen. Citing Supreme Court precedent, they state that such a bond is only meant to ensure a defendant’s appearance at trial, not to compensate the government for alleged losses.

In one of the petition’s most notable passages, Bundoo states that when the arrest order was issued, she was not in court. Rather than trying to evade it, she walked herself to the Monrovia Central Prison, informed officials of the order, contacted the court sheriff herself, and waited to be taken into custody. Her lawyers cite this incident as evidence that she does not pose a flight risk.

They also point out how she responded to the charges initially. Bundoo was abroad for medical treatment when the indictment was returned on November 5, 2025, the petition states, and she voluntarily returned to Liberia on June 9, 2026, surrendered to Criminal Court ‘C’, and accepted service of the indictment and the arrest warrant.

Bundoo is among more than 48 defendants indicted in the corruption case brought by the Assets Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force. The defendants, who include Emmanuel Flomo, manager of Anita Business Center; Anthony Saytue, manager of the Anita Mining and Agriculture Development Cooperative Society; and Philip Toe, assistant manager of the cooperative, face charges including money laundering, theft of property, misuse of public funds, criminal conspiracy, forgery, and criminal facilitation.

The dispute over her bond hinges on two rejected sets of sureties. Bundoo initially offered Cllr. Abraham Wade Simpson and Fallah Fallabou, but the court rejected them after determining that Simpson could not serve as both defense counsel and surety and that Fallabou was himself a defendant in the case. Given 72 hours to try again, she submitted a second bond through Cllr. John Moses Gbetee and Kai Garlo Farley.

Prosecutors also challenged that bond, informing the court that Gbetee’s property was already pledged in other cases and heavily encumbered. They argued that Bundoo’s bond should match the amount specified in the indictment. Feika agreed, noting that Gbetee’s property, valued at about US$350,000, had been pledged for obligations exceeding US$2 million and therefore could not serve as sufficient security. He then set the bond at US$8 million and ordered Bundoo to be taken into custody.

Her lawyers argue that the jailing order was itself unlawful because Liberian law gives a defendant whose bond is rejected an additional 72 hours to file a replacement before being jailed. The petition names Feika as the first respondent and the Republic of Liberia as the second, and asks the court to suspend his ruling, reverse the US$8 million requirement, declare the incarceration order unlawful, and order the trial court to allow her to post a lawful bond.

The Supreme Court is now expected to decide whether Criminal Court ‘C’ exceeded its authority in denying Bundoo the statutory opportunity to perfect her bond, and whether the US$8 million figure can be upheld under the Constitution and the court’s previous rulings.