All efforts to bail Vandalark Patricks out from the Monrovia Central Prison by his legal team has reportedly failed as several insurance companies contacted to bail him out by providing US$15,000 bond are said not to be willing to do so, according to local media report.
The political activist is facing sedition and criminal libel charges against President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, it is believed that he will remain at the Monrovia Central Prison (MCP) until his lawyers can file a credible bond for him to appear in court, the Daily Observer was informed yesterday.
The US$15,000 bond was determined by Criminal Court ‘A’, where Patricks is expected to stand trial should his lawyers meet the legal requirements.
Patricks was indicted immediately a day after he was investigated and charged by officers of the Liberia National Police (LNP) on multiple charges of “Sedition and Criminal Libel against the President.”
Last Tuesday, February 23, police invited Patricks in connection to a statement he made on Sunday, February 21, insinuating that President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf gave direct orders to shoot at the then Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) standard bearer, Winston Tubman, vice standard bearer, George Weah, and murdered innocent and defenseless citizens on November 7, 2011.
Patricks also said the government hired “assassins to murder the former Liberia Petroleum Refinery (LPRC) Managing Director, Harry A. Greaves Jr., and eliminate other political opponents to maintain state power.”
In a statement, the LNP said, “Mr. Patricks was called in to assist security authorities establish facts surrounding his statements,” which the police believe, “has the potential to undermine the peace of the state.”
The LNP maintains that the statements made by Mr. Patricks are “grave and require the establishment of truthfulness for the common good of the Liberian society.”
The LNP also notes that speech that incites violence and maliciously defames the government does not fall under the category of “protected free speech,” and as such, emphasizes that “this action ought not to reflect on the enviable record of the government in protecting freedom of speech and the press.”