Supreme Court Clears Way for Trial of Firm Accused of Diverting $851,000 From Foreign Affairs Renovation

Published: April 30, 2026

MONROVIA — Liberia’s Supreme Court has rejected an attempt by two executives of a government contractor to halt their criminal trial, ruling that questions about whether they personally bear responsibility for an alleged $851,000 shortfall in a Foreign Affairs Ministry renovation contract must be settled in a trial court, not a higher one.

Associate Justice Yussif Kaba, presiding in Chambers, denied a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by John Youboty and Joseph Goodridge, key defendants in the case against MDMC (Expressed Inc.), a private company contracted to renovate the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Monrovia.

Prosecutors allege the company received approximately $1.94 million for the project but completed work valued at just over $1.09 million, roughly 56 percent of the contract, with more than $851,000 allegedly misapplied or diverted.

Youboty and Goodridge had argued that the dispute was contractual and civil in nature and that they could not be held personally liable for actions taken by a corporate entity. Justice Kaba rejected that argument, describing the petition as premature and without merit.

“The writ of prohibition cannot be used as a substitute for the normal trial process,” the court held, instructing the lower court to resume jurisdiction over the matter without delay.

The Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Taskforce, which has monitored the case, welcomed the ruling while noting that legal challenges of this kind are part of due process.

“With the Supreme Court’s decision, the matter now properly returns to the trial court where evidence will be tested and justice pursued,” the task force said, adding that it remains focused on recovering public assets through lawful means.

The case, now before Criminal Court C, is among several high-profile prosecutions tied to Liberia’s ongoing anti-corruption push. It centers on a broader question that legal observers say could shape future prosecutions: whether corporate officers can face individual criminal liability for financial misconduct committed under a company’s name.

Prosecutors are expected to present financial records, contracts, and audit findings. The defense is expected to continue challenging both the criminal characterization of the case and the evidentiary basis for personal liability.