Monrovia Court Throws Out Charges Against Franquet-Dismisses Forgery Case; Cites jurisdictional, Procedural Failures

MONROVIA – The dismissal of forgery and criminal coercion charges against Bertrand M. Franquet by the Monrovia City Magisterial Court highlights ongoing concerns about prosecutorial diligence, jurisdictional clarity, and the proper use of criminal law in commercial disputes. Magistrate Ben Barco’s ruling emphasized procedural delays and lack of jurisdiction, reinforcing legal principles that criminal courts must not be used to settle civil business conflicts. The case also underscores the importance of timely prosecution and clear legal standing in criminal proceedings. As Liberia continues strengthening its judicial system, the decision serves as a reminder that adherence to due process remains central to justice and institutional credibility. THE ANALYST reports.

The Monrovia City Magisterial Court has dismissed all charges of forgery and criminal coercion filed against Defendant Bertrand M. Franquet, ruling that the matter was improperly before the court and lacked both jurisdictional and procedural merit.

In a ruling delivered on February 24, 2026, His Honour Ben Barco, Stipendiary Magistrate, granted the defense’s motion to dismiss, discharging the defendant without day.

Background of the Case

The case stemmed from allegations by complainant Alioune Kebe, Liberia’s Ambassador for Youth Development, who accused his investor partner Franquet of forgery in relation to a commercial transaction. The prosecution argued that the defendant criminally coerced and forged a signature connected to the dispute.

However, the defense challenged the complaint on several grounds, including lack of standing, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and violation of procedural rules governing the timely disposition of criminal matters.

Court Identifies Key Issues

In its ruling, the court identified two principal issues for determination: Whether the pendency of the matter beyond thirty days violated Rule 9 of the Rules Governing the Traffic and Magisterial Courts, and whether the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the dispute arose from a business transaction.

Violation of Rule 9

Addressing Rule 9, the court noted that criminal cases before magistrate and traffic courts are not to remain pending beyond thirty days without determination. The court observed that the matter had lingered for nearly five months without resolution.

According to the ruling, such delay undermines the accused’s right to a speedy trial and violates statutory requirements. The magistrate described the prosecutorial inaction as fatal to the prosecution’s case.

Jurisdictional Concerns

On the issue of jurisdiction, the court held that jurisdiction is conferred by law and must be properly established. The magistrate determined that the dispute arose from a commercial transaction involving landowners and a company, with allegations centered on misrepresentation and fraud.

The court ruled that remedies for such disputes are civil in nature—such as damages or cancellation of contract—not criminal prosecution for forgery. Criminalizing what is essentially a civil matter, the court said, is improper.

As a result, the court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

Lack of Standing and Legal Capacity

Magistrate Barco further found that the complainant, Mr. Kebe, acted as Attorney-in-Fact at the time of the transaction. In his analysis, the court held that an agent cannot allege forgery against his principal for actions carried out within the scope of an agency relationship.

Additionally, the court noted that the complainant’s power of attorney had since been revoked, thereby stripping him of the legal capacity to maintain the action.

Sworn Attestation Rebuts Forgery Claim

A significant factor in the court’s decision was a sworn attestation submitted by Mr. Papa Djibril Kebe, the complainant’s brother. In the attestation, he affirmed that the signature on the disputed agreement was authorized.

The court held that this sworn statement effectively rebutted the allegation of forgery and supported dismissal of the charges.

Original Complaint

On September 1, 2025, the Republic of Liberia, through Ambassador Kebe acting via a private prosecutor, alleged that on December 16, 2024, Defendant Franquet forged his signature, committing him to a contract without consent and later leaving Liberia for Rouen, France.

The complaint further alleged that other defendants signed as witnesses to a contract involving US$9,000.00 for building a school and clinic, allegedly without Kebe’s knowledge.

Defendant Bertrand M. Franquet was charged with Forgery and Criminal Coercion under Chapter 15 Section 15.70 and Chapter 14 Section 14.27 of Liberia’s Revised Penal Law.

Defense Motion and Final Ruling

When the matter was assigned for hearing, counsels for Co-defendant Bertrand Franquet moved the court to dismiss the case in its entirety. An initial application was denied, but nearly five months later, counsels returned with a modified motion citing procedural violations and lack of jurisdiction.

The court agreed with the defense arguments and ruled:

“In view of the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is hereby granted.”

The writ and all charges of forgery and criminal coercion filed against Defendant Bertrand M. Franquet were dismissed, and the defendants were discharged without day, bringing the matter to a close at the magisterial court level.

The ruling, according to legal pundits, reinforces the principle that criminal courts must not be used to settle commercial disputes and highlights the importance of proper jurisdiction and timely prosecution.

Legal analysts contend that the case underscores the need for clear distinction between civil and criminal matters, as well as adherence to procedural rules that protect defendants’ constitutional rights.