the currency. It is not only bank officials who can perform such functions. Since
the plaintiff asserts the affirmative of the issue, he assumes the burden of
producing evidence that he did declare the amount on him. All the evidence
points to the conclusion that he did not declare it and he could not take solace in
the fact that there was no bank official there at the time. If the law says there
must be a declaration, it is the duty of the passenger to comply with it however
cumbersome the process might appear to be. The· plaintiff is also not saying that
only bank officials were authorised under Liberia law to receive the declaration.
Having regards to the mode the plaintiff carried the money it is more probable
than not that he did not intend to declare that money. The court finds the plaintiff
did not declare the mone y at the airport to any official of the defendant.
LEGALITY OF CONFISCATION ORDER
25. Counsel to the plaintiff argued that the confiscation order made by His
Lordship Judge Kaba of the First Judicial Circuit, Criminal Assizes 'C' Monteserrado
••
County, Liberia, which directed the Central Bank of Liberia to keep custody of the
·:
•
II>:"
plaintiff's money pending the conclusion of criminal investigations into the matter
was nulI, void and or no effect as no notice of the proceedings was served on the
plaintiff to enable him defend
his rights. Counsel continued that
this is an
infraction of the provisions of Section 15-119 of An Act to Amend the New Penal
Law, Title 26 as amended, of the Liberian Code of Laws Revised and the 1986
Constitution of Liberia . Plaintiff says he was deported to Nigeria
before the
proceedings leading to the confiscation order were commenced.
26. Counsel to the defendant rejected the arguments of the counsel to the
plaintiff and contended that the confiscation order was properly made as the laws
of Liberia allow for the confiscation of proceeds suspected to derive from criminal
activities pending final determination in order to prevent the criminal having
access to proceeds of the crime. Counsel continued that if the applicant believed
that any of his rights had been or were being violated, he had the full protection
of the law and could have sought legal redress. He concluded that the applicant
chose not to pursue the matter despite the availability of legal remedies.
10