PRISON VISIT TO MONROVIA CENTRAL PRISON

On November 26, the Practicum visited Monrovia Central Prison. We interviewed 69 of 775 pre-trial detainees, including men, women, and juveniles. The interviews consisted of documenting basic information about the detainees' arrests and access to justice. We also interviewed the detainees about the prison's conditions. Furthermore, we had the opportunity to speak with several of the prison guards about the prison's conditions and the constraints that they faced.

Case Studies

The following cases are the experiences of six detainees in Monrovia Central Prison [5]. They demonstrate the common experience at the Prison in which detainees have not been afforded access to justice and have had their Liberian Constitutional rights violated. The Ministry of Justice and the Courts should seek to resolve these matters and correct the institutional deficiencies that foster these conditions. Prompt attention to such matters will help strengthen the Liberian criminal justice system by encouraging greater legitimacy in the judicial process while reducing prison overcrowding.

M. K.
Age: 45
Date of Arrest: November 23, 2008
Charge: Theft of Property

M. K. owns a restaurant/booth in Monrovia; she decided to rent it out because she was moving to Paynesville and would not be able to manage her restaurant as she did not have reliable transportation. Another woman (X) was interested in renting the restaurant and paid M. K. half the rent amount in order to secure her arrangement. Part of the arrangement was for M. K.' s son to be employed by the restaurant under X's management. X could not come up with the remaining rent and did not open the restaurant leaving M. K.' s son jobless. M. K. approached X for the remaining rent and was told by X that she could not pay the balance. Further X refused to go forward with renting the restaurant, insisted that the deal was off, and that M. K. should return X's money M. K. could not come up with the money because she had already spent most of it.

M. K. was at church when she was informed that the police came to her home to arrest her and, in her absence, arrested her son. Upon arriving at the Police Station, M. K. was informed that the charge was of "receiving money on a false pretense." M. K. realized that the arrest was based on a complaint by the woman who was demanding return of the paid rent. M. K. convinced the police that her son did not have anything to do with the money; her son was let go, and M. K. was arrested instead. She was not made aware of any of her Miranda rights during the arrest. According to the court documents, M. K. is charged with "Theft of Property."

Recommendations: M. K.' s dispute with X is a contractual issue, and should not be handled by the criminal justice system. It is unclear who actually owes money to whom as an oral contract was made and the liabilities of the parties are uncertain. Rather, the matter should be brought to the courts for resolution under civil contract law if either party makes that choice. M. K. should be released from prison as she does not belong there. Further her release will give her the opportunity to earn money so that she can pay back X if a civil court makes that determination or M. K. wants to settle the matter.

This case represents a common practice of using the criminal law system and the Liberian National Police (LNP) to extort or intimidate a party to a debt or a civil dispute. It is an abuse of the legal system, consumes the valuable time of the LNP and results in overcrowding of the prisons with no benefit to society. The Ministry of Justice and the LNP should take appropriate steps to end this practice and encourage peaceful civil dispute resolution.

Name: Mr K
Age: 27
Date of Arrest: April 28, 2004
Charge: Murder

Upon return to Liberia following the conflict, Mr K met up with an old friend (the victim) and they decided to go somewhere to smoke weed, drink, and listen to Mr K's tape on his tape player. While together, the friend picked up the tape player and was fooling around with it. When Mr K asked him to stop, the friend acted like he was going to try and hit Mr K in the head with the player. At this point Mr K grabbed the player and pushed the friend. The friend fell to the ground, probably hit his head and started foaming at the mouth. Mr K took his friend to the police station to get help. The police later arrested him at his home without informing him of the charge against him or his Miranda rights. Mr K remained at the police station for five days before he was told he was being charged with murder because the friend did not survive after being taken to the hospital. While in police custody he was interrogated seven different times, but each time he continued to deny everything. Mr K' s first court appearance was not until September 14, 2004 (over four months after being arrested) and he has not been back to court since. He only received his indictment last year, four years and three months after his arrest.

Recommendations: Based on the above facts, murder is the incorrect charge for Mr K. The act of pushing the friend was not meant to intentionally harm the friend and if it was the act that resulted in his friend's eventual death, Mr K should have been charged with manslaughter, if anything at all.

Mr K is eligible to be released under § 2:18.1 because he was not indicted within two terms of court. Additionally, his right to a speedy trial has been violated, and there were procedural problems regarding his arrest, namely the lengthy delay in bringing him to court and the failure of the police to inform him of his Miranda rights. The delay in charging and providing counsel may have also fatally prejudiced Mr K' s rights to investigate his factual defenses of other causes of his friend's death, such as a medical condition or medical malpractice at the hospital.

Name: E. Q.
Age: 33
Date of Arrest: May 2008
Charge: Gang Rape

A woman living with E. Q. and her husband went to the police and complained that she had been raped by the husband. The police arrested E. Q. and told her they were only holding her until her husband appeared so that they could arrest him. However, once the husband had been arrested, E. Q. was informed that she was not being released and that she was being charged as having held down the legs of the woman during the attack. Although she was interrogated by the police with regards to her knowledge and involvement in the rape, E. Q. denied all involvement. Since the time of the original complaint, the victim has refused to come to court to testify and has told E. Q. that there is no case against her or her husband. E. Q. has been told that it will cost $200USD each to obtain counsel for her and her husband so that someone can file for their dismissal.

Recommendation: The prosecutor should move to dismiss this case for lack of evidence since the government's primary witness, the victim, has refused to testify.

Cases alleging rape should not be dismissed simply because the complaining witness refuses to testify. However, if no additional police investigation was done, and there are no additional witnesses or medical evidence, there is no case to procPeeed under and this case should be dismissed.

Name: P. Y.
Age: 36
Date of Arrest: September 9, 2006
Charge: Armed Robbery

UNMIL and the LNP arrested P. Y. in what he called a ghetto at 11:00 AM on September 9, 2006. Apparently, they had conducted a sweep of the area and arrested ten others in addition to P. Y. At this time, the other ten have been released and P. Y. alone remains in prison. When he was taken to the police station, the police told him that he was being arrested for disturbing peaceful citizens and for armed robbery. He was first taken to a police depot for two days and then was moved to the Monrovian Central Police Station, where he was held for four days before being taken to court. At the Monrovian Central Police Station, P. Y. wrote a statement which said that he had not been committing armed robbery but had simply been in that location after selling his goods and had been arbitrarily arrested. The police had confiscated his ID card and other property and, according to P. Y, they are still in possession of those items. Based on P. Y.' s story, there had been no complainant, nor did the police or UNMIL have any reasonable belief to arrest him. As he does not have any family or friends to help him, he has been unable to obtain legal counsel and none has been appointed to him.

Recommendation: According to P. Y.' s statements he has not committed any crime but has been in prison for over two years. The prosecutor should review P. Y.' s file and if there is not any credible evidence against him, move to dismiss this case for lack of evidence. Additionally, P. Y. is eligible to be released under § 2:18.1 because he was not indicted within two terms of court.

Name: S. B.
Age: 17
Date of Arrest: January, 2007
Charge: Murder

S. B. was involved in a dispute over money with his friend (the victim). The dispute escalated and the victim broke a bottle and came after S. B. with the bottle. S. B. went into an eatery and took a knife. The victim allegedly attacked S. B, and S. B. stabbed the victim. The victim was taken to the hospital and died later that day. The LNP arrested S. B. that night and he was detained in the police station for 5 days before being taken to court and then to Monrovia Central Prison. S. B.has been detained for almost 2 years and has not been given a Writ of Indictment or been to trial. He does not have the money for a lawyer, nor has one been provided to him by the government. The LNP did not read him his Miranda rights and he confessed the details of the incident to the LNP during interrogation.

Recommendation: S. B' s case should be brought before a court because of the length of his detention, the potential procedural errors during his arrest, the fact that he is juvenile, and he may have a legitimate defense of self-defense. Furthermore, S. B. is eligible to be released under § 2:18.1 because he was not indicted within two terms of court.

Name: M. W.
Age: 49
Date of Arrest: November 17, 2008
Charge: Theft of Property

M. W. is a nurse. She went to a patient's house to treat the patient. M. W. treated the patient and left. After she left, the patient told the police that she was missing jewelry and claimed that M. W. had stolen it when she was at the house treating the patient. The police arrested M. W. during the day at her workplace. M. W. maintains her innocence and claims that other people had access to the jewelry (namely the patient's relatives) and could have committed the theft. However, these people have not been detained by the police. M. W. does not have the money for a lawyer, nor has one been provided to her by the government. Also, the LNP did not read her Miranda rights.

Recommendation: Her case should be investigated and dismissed if there is no other evidence to support the defendant's allegations (was any of the missing jewelry found in her possession, for example.) If the case proceeds, then M. W. can hire a lawyer or one should be provided to her so she can properly defend herself.

As a nurse, M. W. is a productive member of society who provides valuable and much needed medical care to the Monrovian community. She is an ideal person to release on her own recognizance which would allow her to return to work pending resolution of this case.

______________________________________________________________________

5. The information regarding these cases was obtained through interviews with the detainees. We have not independently verified the information or done any additional research. This report relies on the truthfulness of the detainees. While we believe the information presented is true, we cannot guarantee its accuracy.

Read the next section of this article: 2. Monrovia Central Prison: Systemic Problems.

Return to the previous page of this article.

You may wish to download this full article, with all sections, as a printable PDF here.