Court Dismisses Alleged Corruption Case  Against Former NOCAL CEO and  Co-Defendant Over Prosecution Failure To Commence Trial

March 18, 2026

Monrovia: Criminal Court “C” at the Temple of Justice has dismissed an alleged corruption case against former National Oil Company of Liberia CEO, Rustolyn Suacoco Dennis and co-defendant Richman Jallah, over prosecution’s failure to commence trial within the statutory period according to Liberia’s Criminal Procedure Law.

On March 17, 2026, Assigned Circuit Judge Ousman F. Feika in a ruling held that the defendants’ constitutional rights were being violated due to the state’s prolonged delay in advancing the case after the indictment was returned and served.

According to the ruling, the defendants filed an eight-count motion to dismiss the case on February 9, 2026, arguing that the prosecution had “failed, neglected, and refused” to take the necessary steps to bring the matter to trial.

They noted in their argument that two successive terms of court had passed without any progress, contrary to Chapter 18, Section 18.2 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

The defendants further argued that the lingering indictment imposed travel restrictions that prevented them from seeking medical care, conducting business, and fulfilling family obligations abroad conditions they said infringed on their constitutional rights to freedom of movement and the presumption of innocence.

In its resistance according Spoon, the prosecution conceded that trial had not begun within the statutory timeframe but attempted to shift responsibility to the defendants. State lawyers argued that the accused failed to file motions to have the case placed on the trial docket or request its assignment. They also asked the court to consider its heavy caseload, including drug and theft cases, as contributing factors to the delay.

Prosecutors added that dismissing the indictment would not bar the state from seeking a new indictment, and therefore the relief sought was not absolute.
Judge Feika disagreed, ruling that the prosecution had not shown any legally sufficient reason to avoid dismissal.

“Having met the requirement of the law and the respondent not having shown legally sufficient reasons why the motion should not be granted,” the court ruled, the indictment was dismissed.

The dismissal was issued without prejudice, meaning the state retains the right to refile charges. The court also ordered that the defendants be discharged from the crimes contained in the indictment and that their constitutional rights be fully restored.