By: Alphanso G. Kalama
Monrovia, Liberia – Despite a clear ruling from the Supreme Court of Liberia suspending Counselor Samuel Pearson from practicing law and ordering him to repay tens of thousands of dollars wrongfully withdrawn from a deceased woman’s estate, the Probate Court appears to be dragging its feet on enforcement—raising serious concerns about the rule of law and the integrity of Liberia’s justice system.
On February 17, 2025, the Supreme Court suspended Cllr. Pearson for six months and ordered him to restitute US$93,369 and L$6,235,353.41—funds he allegedly misappropriated from the estate of Madam Maime Hayford Pearson, to whom he had no blood relation.
Pearson is also accused of fraudulently appointing himself as administrator of her estate, despite the presence of her only biological child, Mr. Ballah Yargbo.
Nearly five months later, however, the Monthly and Probate Court for Montserrado County—the very court legally tasked with revoking the fraudulent Letters of Administration and ensuring restitution—has failed to enforce the ruling.
Who Is Protecting Cllr. Pearson?
The burning question remains: Who is behind the delay? Why has the Probate Court not compelled Cllr. Pearson to return the funds and submit a full accounting as directed by the Supreme Court?
Fueling further suspicion is the alleged involvement of Mr. James Henric Pearson, the stepfather of Mr. Yargbo and the uncle of Cllr. Pearson, who is believed to have conspired with his nephew in the misuse of estate funds. Is this a case of family influence superseding the law?
A Threat to Justice and Authority of the Supreme Court? Victim Speaks Out
In a passionate appeal, Mr. Ballah Yargbo, the only son of the late Madam Maime Hayford Pearson, expressed disbelief over the inaction.
“This is personal and painful. The Supreme Court already ruled. Why is the Probate Court silent? Why hasn’t Samuel Pearson been made to pay back what he took? Who is protecting him?” Yargbo asked. “It makes you wonder if the law truly protects the ordinary citizen.”
The Legal Mandate
The Supreme Court’s ruling was unambiguous. It directed the Probate Court to: Compel a full and proper accounting of all estate funds, revoke Cllr. Pearson’s unlawful Letters of Administration and ensure the restitution of all misappropriated funds
To date, none of these actions appear to have been taken—an apparent defiance of the February ruling.
What Now?
This case highlights a deeper crisis within Liberia’s judicial system: selective enforcement. The Supreme Court, as the highest arbiter of justice, must see its decisions executed promptly and without bias. Any delay erodes public trust and undermines the rule of law.
Why hasn’t the Supreme Court’s decision been enforced? What justifies this delay? And will justice ever truly be served?
If these questions go unanswered, the consequences could be devastating—not just for Mr. Yargbo, but for every Liberian who still believes in the power and fairness of the law.
Cllr. Pearson Responds
When contacted, Cllr. Samuel Pearson challenged the Supreme Court’s ruling against him. He claimed he was justified in withdrawing funds from the deceased’s bank accounts, citing a limited power of attorney allegedly signed by both his uncle James Henric Pearson and his accuser, Ballah V. Yargbo.
He described the ruling as a conspiracy against him, orchestrated by the Grievance and Ethics Committee (GEC), which initially heard the matter before the full bench of the Supreme Court—then headed by the outgoing Chief Justice—upheld the ruling.
“How can one case produce two different reports?” Pearson questioned, alleging that the original report was tampered with prior to its submission, with discrepancies in its recommendations and missing GEC signatures.
He further claimed that the matter was initially withdrawn from court to pursue an out-of-court resolution, but that Ballah Yargbo later returned to court “covertly,” bypassing standard legal procedures. Pearson views this as a breach of due process that led to the GEC’s final report.
Currently under suspension as part of the Supreme Court’s reprimand, Cllr. Pearson confirmed he has filed a complaint against the Grievance and Ethics Committee—signaling his refusal to comply with the order to repay the funds and surrender his Letters of Administration.
