Published: October 27, 2025
MONROVIA — Magistrate Ben Barco of the Monrovia City Court on Tuesday, October 28, 2025, dismissed the Simple Assault charge against defendant Kindness Wilson, ruling that the prosecution’s repeated failure to move the case forward violated her constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Delivering his decision at the Temple of Justice, Magistrate Barco said the Ministry of Justice had been granted multiple continuances but failed to produce witnesses or advance its case. He described the prosecution’s conduct as “unjustifiable and contrary to law.”
“The prosecution controls all the instrumentalities of the state and should not be giving excuses to delay trial,” Magistrate Barco said in open court. “The delay in this matter is unjustifiable, and the right of the defendant to a speedy trial must be protected at all costs.”
The court ordered that all charges against Wilson be dismissed and that her rights and liberty be restored immediately.
Court’s Findings
Records show the case was filed on March 31, 2025, and that Wilson was arraigned on April 8, entering a plea of not guilty. Since then, prosecutors failed to conclude their presentation of witnesses despite several adjournments.
The last hearing was held on September 12, and no explanation was provided for the state’s subsequent absence. Magistrate Barco noted that more than a month had elapsed without action.
“The file of this case contains ample evidence of the reluctance of the state to proceed,” he said. “This court finds no justification for the prosecution’s conduct.”
Defense Motion for Dismissal
The ruling followed a motion filed by Attorney Jeremiah Samuel Dugbo, counsel for the defendant, who argued that the prosecution had on four occasions failed to present its final witness and had not exercised its authority to subpoena the witness.
Dugbo described the conduct as “willful neglect” and said it amounted to a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.
He further told the court that the prosecution had requested a three-week postponement because government lawyers were allegedly unavailable — even though Cllrs. Moriah Y. Korkpor, Jonah A. Kerkulah, and Joseph Sammy were all on record for the Ministry of Justice.
Dugbo noted that the court had already granted a one-week continuance that expired on September 19, yet the prosecution did not reappear until the October 28 hearing.
He cited Rule Nine of the Rules Governing Magistrate and Traffic Courts, which mandates that criminal cases be concluded within 30 days, and Rule Seven of the Code of Professional and Moral Ethics, which requires prosecutors to pursue justice rather than mere conviction.
“The delay in this case amounts to malicious prosecution and a direct violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights,” Attorney Dugbo argued.
Prosecution’s Opposition
In opposition, Cllr. Joseph Sammy, representing the Ministry of Justice, described the defense motion as “unfounded and misleading,” arguing that Rule Nine had been misinterpreted and was inapplicable in this instance.
He said the state had already produced several witnesses, including law enforcement officers, and that its final witness — a medical doctor — was available to testify.
“The motion should be denied in its entirety,” Cllr. Sammy told the court. “This case has not been pending undetermined, and the defense’s argument is inconsistent with the court record.”
The prosecution cited Chapter 25, Section 25.1 of the Civil Procedure Law, concerning judicial notice of court records, and reaffirmed its reliance on Rule Nine of the Magistrate Court Rules.
Court’s Decision
After weighing arguments from both sides, Magistrate Barco ruled that the prosecution’s failure to proceed was unjustified and in violation of law.
“The prosecution’s delay is unreasonable and unjustifiable given that it controls all the instrumentalities of the state,” Barco said. “This court cannot condone such neglect.”
The court granted the defense motion, dismissed the case in its entirety, and restored the defendant’s rights and liberty.
Legal Observations
Legal observers at the Temple of Justice described the ruling as a reaffirmation of due process and the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Liberian law.
“This decision underscores the court’s duty to ensure that justice is not delayed or denied,” said a legal analyst who attended the proceedings.
The ruling, they added, highlights the judiciary’s increasing insistence on prosecutorial accountability and the right of defendants to timely justice.
Discussion about this post