Published: June 26, 2026
MONROVIA — A hearing on the criminal appearance bond of former Chief of Protocol Nora Finda Bundoo stalled at Criminal Court “C” Thursday when prosecutors refused to accept photocopied property documents, forcing one of her sureties to leave and return with the originals before the proceeding could go on.
The surety, lawyer Abraham Way Simpson, had taken the stand to justify property he pledged to secure Bundoo’s release. The hearing is part of the prosecution’s challenge to the bond, in which it has asked the court to scrutinize the value, ownership and legal sufficiency of the properties sureties have offered.
Bundoo, who faces an indictment in a major asset-recovery case, earlier filed an appearance bond backed by individuals who signed affidavits of surety. Prosecutors say the court must satisfy itself that those sureties and their pledged properties meet the legal requirements for a valid bond.
Simpson testified that he offered a property he said he solely owns in Gaye Town, Old Road, Sinkor, valued at $200,000. He told the court the taxes were paid up to date, that no liens existed, and that he signed the affidavit without coercion. He said he had attached a title deed, a Liberia Revenue Authority tax receipt, a tax-clearance certificate and photographs to the affidavit.
When defense counsel asked him to identify those documents in the court file, it emerged that the attached instruments were photocopies rather than originals. They included a tax-clearance certificate, an LRA receipt showing payment of $577.03 on April 6, 2026, a tax bill listing property number 50354 and cadaster number 3536 with a stated value of $230,810, and a quitclaim deed for a lot in Oldest Congo Town, Sinkor.
The defense first asked the court to place temporary marks of identification on the photocopies to avoid delay while Simpson retrieved the originals. Prosecutors objected, arguing the copies failed the best-evidence rule because no originals had been produced, and citing what they described as a Supreme Court ruling in the Cyber Mining case barring such temporary marks. They maintained that original title documents and tax records must be presented before the court could weigh them in a proceeding to justify sureties.
Defense counsel conceded the objection and asked for two hours to obtain the originals. The court granted one, ordering the parties back at 12:07 p.m. “in the interest of justice and fair play.” When the hearing resumed, the defense produced the original documents, which the court marked as Exhibit M/1-in-bulk, consisting of four sheets. Simpson confirmed they were the same records he had described, and the defense rested his direct examination while reserving the right to act further.
On cross-examination, prosecutors raised a separate concern over Simpson’s dual role as both a surety and a lawyer for the defense. They asked whether he would comply with Rule 19 of the Code of Moral and Professional Ethics, which discourages a lawyer from continuing to handle a case after becoming a witness for a client, except where essential to the ends of justice. Defense counsel objected, calling the question unconstitutional, self-incriminating and an intrusion on the court’s authority to decide questions of law. The court sustained the objection, ruling that the question invaded its province, so Simpson was not required to answer.
The exchange framed the central dispute. The defense argues Bundoo’s bond is backed by identifiable property and legally sufficient sureties, while the prosecution insists the court must strictly verify the authenticity, ownership, value and legal availability of every property offered. The challenge does not decide Bundoo’s guilt on the underlying indictment. The immediate question before the court is whether the bond and its sureties meet the legal requirements to secure her continued appearance. The court is expected to weigh the evidence and arguments before ruling on the exception to the bond and the motion to justify the sureties.
Bundoo remains an indictee in a major asset-recovery and alleged financial-crimes case brought by the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force, working with the Ministry of Justice. An indictment contains allegations, and guilt must be determined by the court through due process.
According to AREPT’s November 2025 statement, Bundoo, businesswoman Pamela Anita Jallah, Francis B. Blamo and numerous others were charged in connection with alleged money laundering and public-resource offenses. The listed counts include money laundering, theft of property, misuse of public money or property, criminal conspiracy, forgery, criminal facilitation, abuse of office, and alleged violations of public procurement and public financial management laws.
The task force has publicly linked the case to assets and transactions it says investigators traced, including properties in Christopolis, Brewerville; Freetown Community along Marshall Road in Margibi County; and Rehab Community in Paynesville. It also alleged that 42 Suzuki vehicles were bought through Gracious Ride Inc. between 2022 and 2023. Those claims remain subject to proof and challenge in court.
Recent reports describe the broader indictment as involving alleged assets valued at about $6.9 million and L$871 million. That reported scale is one reason AREPT has argued the bond should receive strict judicial scrutiny.
Bundoo reportedly returned to Liberia in early June and filed a property valuation bond reported at about $435,560. AREPT later filed exceptions and sought her rearrest, arguing the bond was inadequate and might not satisfy requirements for valuation, verification, approval and the assurance of an accused person’s continued appearance. The defense position has not been fully detailed in public reports, but the court, not AREPT, will decide whether the bond is sufficient, whether the sureties must justify the property offered, and whether any further order, including rearrest, is warranted.
Discussion about this post