In Ellen Corkrum Criminal Case, Musa Bility’s Appeal Denied

    0
    816
    musability-96a.jpg

    A request seeking to restrain the Government of Liberia from providing additional evidence to prosecute Mr. Musa Bility was on Wednesday, December 18, denied by Judge Blamo Dixon of Criminal Court ‘C’.

    At Wednesday’s (December 18th) hearing, Bility himself was present in court.

    He had earlier denied the allegation and is now on a criminal appearance bond.

    Denying Bility’s request, Judge Dixon maintained that, “defendant asked the court to exclude additional evidence that the prosecution intended to use in the case, which does not form part of the disclosure they made earlier. But that request is hereby denied and dismissed.”

    He further ruled that the “court shall allow additional evidence from the prosecution which was not disclosed in the case. Court should receive and permit the defendants to produce any documents that they have not disclosed including all of the recordings, be it public or secret in the possession of Madam Ellen Corkrum and Melvin Johnson.”

    He continued, “Hereafter, no one in the public shall be allowed to call for the resignation or dismissal of those connected to the secret recordings of Madam Crokurm, while the matter is pending, before it, as well as, pending its final disposition by this court or any other courts.”

    Defendant Bility who was then Board Chair of the Liberia Airport Authority (LAA) together with several Roberts International Airport (RIA) Executives including Ellen Corkrum, Counselor Melvin Johnson, (believed to be a lover of  Corkrum), as well as the  Presidents/CEOs of the Liberia Bank for Development and Investment (LBDI) and the First International Bank (FIB) were indicted for economic sabotage, theft of property criminal  conspiracy by the government of Liberia.

    Both banks were said to have been the custodians of the RIA funds.

    Bility’s lawyers, however, asked the court to bar prosecution from producing any other evidence during the case of the trial, citing Chapter 17, Section 17.2 of the Criminal Procedural Law.

    The Court refused.

    Authors

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here