Ambassador Nora Finda Bundoo, former Chief of Protocol under the Weah administration, has vehemently rejected an invitation to appear before Liberia’s Assets Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force (AREPT). The Task Force alleges Bundoo engaged in corruption, economic crimes, and theft during her tenure, accusations she dismisses as a politically motivated smear campaign designed to damage her reputation. Bundoo contends that the AREPT cannot function as both investigator and judge, highlighting what she perceives as a clear conflict of interest. She argues that if the Task Force possesses compelling evidence against her, they should proceed with legal action rather than summoning her for questioning. This public defiance underscores the growing tension between the former official and the current government’s efforts to combat corruption and recover allegedly misappropriated assets.
The AREPT’s investigation centers on Bundoo’s alleged involvement with the Anita Group of Companies and its subsidiary, Gracious Ride, a transport service. The Task Force claims Bundoo used her official position and influence to improperly benefit these companies, including facilitating the acquisition of a fleet of Suzuki vehicles through potentially illicit means. They further allege that she affixed her name and signature to corporate documents related to these companies while still serving in the Executive Mansion, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest and misuse of public funds. These allegations, according to the Task Force, fall under the purview of Executive Order #145, which empowers the government to pursue and recover assets believed to have been unlawfully obtained by current and former officials.
Bundoo, however, maintains her innocence and characterizes the AREPT’s actions as a politically driven attack. She argues that the Task Force’s investigation lacks impartiality and due process, emphasizing the seizure of vehicles from her transport service, Gracious Ride, as an example of their prejudicial conduct. This seizure, which occurred approximately 12 months prior to the official invitation, suggests a pre-determined conclusion on the part of the AREPT, according to Bundoo. She questions the Task Force’s motives, suggesting that the investigation is less about pursuing justice and more about tarnishing her reputation through politically motivated accusations.
The official communication from the AREPT, issued on April 15, 2025, detailed the specific allegations against Bundoo. These include conflict of interest, theft of property, misapplication of public funds, economic sabotage, and money laundering. The communication served as a formal notification of the ongoing probe and a request for Bundoo to appear before the Task Force. However, Bundoo’s refusal to cooperate represents a significant challenge to the AREPT’s authority and raises questions about the effectiveness of its investigative procedures. Her public pronouncements emphasize her belief that the Task Force is predetermined to find her guilty, irrespective of the evidence.
Bundoo’s rebuttal of the AREPT’s allegations underscores a broader debate within Liberia concerning the balance between combating corruption and ensuring fair legal processes. Her argument that the Task Force cannot simultaneously act as investigator and judge raises fundamental questions about due process and the potential for political bias within these investigations. The seizure of her vehicles prior to a formal invitation further fuels her suspicions of a pre-ordained outcome, highlighting the need for transparency and impartiality in asset recovery efforts. This case represents a critical test of the AREPT’s credibility and its ability to effectively address corruption while upholding the principles of justice and fairness.
The standoff between Bundoo and the AREPT has significant implications for Liberia’s ongoing fight against corruption. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future investigations and influence public perception of the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability. If the AREPT fails to address Bundoo’s concerns about due process and potential political bias, it could undermine public trust in the institution and hinder its ability to effectively pursue legitimate cases of corruption. Conversely, if Bundoo’s allegations of a politically motivated smear campaign are substantiated, it could raise serious questions about the government’s use of its investigative powers. This case, therefore, represents a crucial juncture in Liberia’s efforts to address corruption and establish a fair and just legal system.
