Former Executive Mansion Chief of Protocol, Nora Finda Bundoo still faces legal zigzag with her criminal appearance bond as Criminal Court "C" Judge Ousman F Fakia has found a criminal appearance bond posted by the American Undertakers Group International Insurance Company (AUG) on her behalf insufficient, giving the insurer 30 days to augment the bond to meet the court's US$8 million threshold.
This marks the continuation of the legal zigzag hovering over the accused criminal appearance bond since she availed herself to the authority of the court to face prosecution.
The ruling, issued Tuesday, September 1, 2026, by Assigned Circuit Judge Ousman F. Feika, is the latest development in a prolonged dispute over Bundoo's criminal appearance bond in a case in which she and several co-defendants face allegations including money laundering, theft of property, misuse of public money, property or records, criminal conspiracy, forgery, and criminal facilitation.
However, Following the Ruling, Judge Feika Orders Augmentation of the Bond, Retains Bundoo's Passport and Travel Documents
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
The Montserrado County Grand Jury indicted Bundoo and other defendants on November 5, 2025.
While the latest ruling does not determine Bundoo's guilt or innocence, it highlights continuing concerns over the adequacy of the financial guarantees being presented to secure her release pending trial.
The court's ruling traces the bond controversy through several hearings.
On July 3, 2026, Judge Feika set aside previously submitted surety bonds after determining that the sureties were insufficient and were not qualified to file the bonds in the first place.
The court subsequently gave Bundoo 72 hours to submit a new criminal appearance bond.
Two sureties, Kai Garlo Farley and John Moses Gbetee, later submitted property valuation bonds on her behalf. The prosecution challenged the bonds, prompting another hearing.
On July 21, 2026, the court ruled on the matter and established a US$8 million bond threshold.
In an effort to satisfy the court's requirement, two insurance companies licensed by the Central Bank of Liberia to issue criminal appearance bonds Accident and Casualty Insurance Company (ACICO) and American Undertakers Group International Insurance Company (AUG) submitted separate bonds on Bundoo's behalf.
The prosecution again objected, arguing that the bonds did not adequately satisfy the court's requirements.
The prosecution argued that the bonds were "grossly insufficient" and failed to satisfy the statutory objectives of bail under Section 13.2 of Liberia's Criminal Procedure Law.
According to the prosecution, the financial guarantees presented on Bundoo's behalf did not provide adequate security to ensure her appearance throughout the criminal proceedings.
The State therefore asked the court to reject the bonds and require Bundoo to provide a criminal appearance bond that meets the applicable legal requirements.
Bundoo, however, argued that bail is not intended to punish an accused person or impose an excessive financial burden.
Her legal position maintained that bail serves two primary purposes: relieving the State of the responsibility of keeping an accused person in custody pending trial and ensuring that the accused remains subject to the court's jurisdiction and appears whenever required.
Bundoo also argued that bail should not be fixed at an amount so excessive that it becomes dependent on the accused's financial capacity.
After examining the sureties presented by AUG and ACICO, Judge Feika found the AUG bond insufficient.
The court's concern centered on AUG's existing financial obligations.
According to Judge Feika, criminal appearance bonds had already been filed against AUG's assets in other courts.
The court consequently determined that the insurer's available assets were not sufficient to support the bond as submitted in Bundoo's case.
The finding raises a significant question about the ability of an insurer with multiple outstanding criminal appearance bond obligations to provide meaningful financial security for defendants facing major criminal charges.
Rather than vacating the entire bond arrangement, however, the court gave AUG an opportunity to correct the deficiency.
Judge Feika ordered the insurer to augment the deficient portion of the bond within 30 days from the date of the ruling.
If AUG successfully cures the shortfall and satisfies the US$8 million threshold established by the court, the bond will be approved in accordance with law.
While giving the insurer additional time to satisfy the bond requirement, the court imposed a significant restriction on Bundoo's ability to travel.
Judge Feika ordered that Bundoo's passport and all other travel documents remain in the custody of the court pending the conclusion of the criminal case.
The order effectively prevents Bundoo from using her travel documents while the case remains pending, unless otherwise ordered by the court.
The latest decision brings renewed attention to Liberia's criminal bail system, particularly the credibility and enforceability of multimillion-dollar appearance bonds.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The case demonstrates that the stated face value of an insurance bond does not automatically make it acceptable to the court.
An insurer may issue a bond for a specified amount, but the court must still determine whether the company has sufficient assets and legal capacity to honor its financial obligation if the defendant fails to appear.
In Bundoo's case, the court's concern over AUG's existing bonds against its assets places the issue of asset availability, financial capacity and competing obligations at the center of the bond dispute.
It also raises a broader regulatory question: How much exposure can an insurance company legally carry through criminal appearance bonds before its ability to guarantee another defendant becomes questionable?
That question could become increasingly important as courts impose larger financial requirements in high-profile criminal cases.
The criminal allegations remain subject to trial, and the prosecution must prove its case in accordance with Liberian law.
The issue before the court at this stage was whether the sureties submitted on Bundoo's behalf were sufficient to secure her appearance during the proceedings.
The court has given AUG 30 days to cure the deficiency, while Bundoo's passport and other travel documents remain under judicial custody.
