Liberia: Lawyers for the former Vice President Say Arrest, Detention, Prison and Search Breached Constitution as Bail Fight Heads to Appeal

MONROVIA – When the Monrovia City Court issued a writ on August 25, 2026, commanding police to “arrest the living bodies” of Jewel Howard-Taylor, it set in motion one of the most consequential criminal cases against a former senior official in Liberia’s recent history.

---

By Rodney D. Sieh

---

A month later, the former Vice President sits under house arrest, her bail application denied, her phones and computers seized, and her lawyers argue that nearly every step the State has taken against her has run afoul of the Constitution.

In a formal statement, her legal team lists what it calls a “cumulative constitutional injury”: ten separate points at which, they contend, Mrs. Howard-Taylor’s liberty was taken or restricted without full regard to the safeguards in Article 21 of the 1986 Constitution.

The allegations against her remain unproven, and so do her lawyers’ claims. Both will ultimately be tested in court.

WHAT THE STATE ALLEGES

The writ of arrest, obtained by FrontPageAfrica, lays out the government’s case in stark terms.

According to the writ, businessman Sheik Bashiru Kante brought two foreign nationals, Taras Zadereiko, alias “Tony,” and Mihovil Vrovac, alias “Michael,” to Liberia in 2021, where they allegedly conspired to import and export cocaine through Liberia to Europe.

The State claims the group set out to recruit top government officials to protect the scheme, and that in 2022 Kante introduced the two men to Mrs. Howard-Taylor, then Vice President.

The writ alleges that in early 2022 she met the men at her Sophie residence in Congo Town, and that they invited her to Dubai to meet Croatian national Nikola Ivancic, whom the government describes as a drug kingpin and ringleader of the cartel. There, prosecutors claim, a meeting was held about using Liberia as a transit point for cocaine, and she agreed.

The State further alleges she received US$45,000 from Ivancic in Dubai “for shopping,” later requested and received US$75,000 from the cartel through Kante, and subsequently received a further US$15,000.

She is charged under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act of 2023, the New Penal Law and the AML-CFT Act of 2021, with offenses including importation and exportation of controlled drugs, illicit trafficking, criminal conspiracy, criminal facilitation and criminal solicitation.

THE DEFENSE’S TEN COUNTS

Her lawyers do not address the merits of those allegations in their statement. Instead, they focus on process, and they list ten grievances:

1. Arrest without presentation of a writ of arrest

2. No demonstrated completed investigation to justify the initial deprivation of liberty

3. Incarceration beyond 48 hours

4. Failure to formally charge and present her before a court within 48 hours

5. Absence of an indictment at the relevant stage

6. Incarceration at the Monrovia Central Prison while unconvicted

7. Treatment inconsistent with the distinction between an accused and a convicted prisoner

8. House arrest and substantial restrictions on movement

9. Continued pretrial deprivation of liberty

10. Denial of bail despite the passage of several years since the alleged conduct

“An accusation is not a conviction,” the statement declares.

THE 48-HOUR RULE

At the center of the defense argument is Article 21 of the Constitution, which requires that anyone arrested be formally charged and presented before a court of competent jurisdiction within 48 hours.

The legal team contends the records show Mrs. Howard-Taylor was held beyond that window before the required judicial process was completed. If that chronology holds up, it would be among the most straightforward constitutional questions in the case: the 48-hour rule is not discretionary.

The lawyers are careful to concede the State’s right to investigate. “The issue is not whether the State has authority to investigate alleged criminal conduct. It does,” the statement says. “The issue is whether that authority was exercised within the constitutional limits.”

‘WHILE UNDERGOING INVESTIGATION’

The defense’s second count, that no completed investigation justified her detention, finds an unexpected echo in the government’s own paperwork.

A court interim order dated September 22, 2026, signed on the directive of Judge Ousman F. Feika of Criminal Court “C,” describes Mrs. Howard-Taylor as “currently being detained while undergoing investigation by National Joint Security authorities.”

That language, a month after the arrest writ was issued, suggests the investigation was still underway while she was held. The lawyers argue that an ongoing investigation does not by itself justify continued detention, particularly under a Constitution that expressly bars preventive detention.

FROM CENTRAL PRISON TO HOUSE ARREST

The former Vice President’s journey from arrest to the Monrovia Central Prison and then to house arrest forms another pillar of the defense case.

Her lawyers argue the Constitution protects accused persons from being treated as convicted prisoners, and that housing an unconvicted former Vice President at the country’s main penitentiary raises questions about both the legal basis for her confinement and the conditions she faced.

The later move to house arrest, they argue, is itself a restriction on constitutionally protected freedom of movement, one that must rest on a clear court order and a lawful basis.

THE SEARCH: ‘ALL TELEPHONES, MOBILE PHONES’

Perhaps the most concrete dispute concerns the search of her home.

The September 22 interim order directed the Sheriff of Criminal Court “C” to “immediately move into” her residence, conduct a “comprehensive inspection,” and seize “all telephones, mobile phones, communication gadgets and/or devices” found on the premises or in her possession, then produce an inventory.

The order was served on one of her lawyers at 6:27 p.m. that Tuesday.

According to the defense, officers removed a desktop computer, a printer, an internet connection device, and several mobile phones reportedly belonging to other people, along with other electronics.

The breadth of the order is likely to be contested. It covers every device “found in the premises,” not only those belonging to the accused. The Constitution requires search warrants to specifically identify the place to be searched and the objects sought. Whether an order to seize every phone in a house, regardless of owner, meets that standard is a question the courts may be asked to settle.

“What was the legal basis for taking property belonging to persons other than the accused?” the lawyers ask.

THE BAIL BATTLE

The bail question may prove decisive. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that accused persons shall be bailable on recognizance or sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses or grave offenses as defined by law, and prohibits excessive bail.

Mrs. Howard-Taylor’s bail application was denied at trial level. Her lawyers have excepted to the ruling and are pursuing an appeal.

‘EACH OFFENSE STANDS ON ITS OWN STATUTE’

The defense’s sharpest bail argument centers on the money laundering count.

Attorney Gbawou Kowou, a prominent Liberian lawyer, criminal justice professor and former law enforcement official who represents the former Vice President, argues that money laundering under Section 15.2.1 of the AML/CFT Act of 2021 is not classified as a capital, grave or non-bailable offense. The statute, he notes, expressly makes money laundering a first-degree felony without designating it as grave or non-bailable.

In his view, the presence of drug charges in the same writ should not automatically make the separate money laundering allegation non-bailable. “The bailability of each offense should be determined according to the specific statute creating and classifying that offense,” Kowou said.

Unless the government can point to a specific provision of law making money laundering itself a grave or non-bailable offense, the defense will argue that the count remains subject to the constitutional and statutory right to bail.

The argument puts the burden squarely on the State. It forces prosecutors to show, statute by statute, the legal basis for denying bail, rather than relying on the overall gravity of the case.

THE STATE’S LIKELY ANSWER

The government is expected to rest on the drug counts. The 2023 amendment to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was widely reported to have made major drug trafficking offenses non-bailable. If that holds for the drug charges in the writ, prosecutors may argue that a bailable money laundering count does not entitle her to release while non-bailable charges remain.

That tension is likely to be at the heart of the appeal. Can a single non-bailable count keep an accused in detention even when other counts in the same writ are bailable?

THE 2023 LAW AND 2021 CONDUCT

The defense has a further line of attack against the State’s reliance on the 2023 Act. Most of the conduct alleged in the writ dates to 2021 and 2022, before that law took effect. Article 21 prohibits ex post facto laws, which penalize conduct more harshly than the law did when it occurred.

If the courts find the 2023 non-bailable provisions cannot reach conduct from 2021 and 2022, the State’s main basis for denying bail could fall away. That would leave the money laundering question, in Kowou’s framing, as the clearest test of whether the law is being applied count by count.

BIGGER THAN ONE DEFENDANT

The legal team frames the case as a test of the justice system itself.

“No citizen is above the law,” the statement reads. “But neither is the State above the law.”

They argue that constitutional protections matter most when they are claimed by people who are politically controversial or unpopular, and that the question should be answered by the record and the courts, not by political loyalty.

The statement closes with a question that will hang over the case as it moves through the courts: “Is Liberia a nation governed by laws — or a nation governed by men?”