The question as to whether Bernie Ebbers, the co-founder and former chief executive officer of the WorldCom trial that led to his conviction for twenty-five years in federal prison was fair still remains unanswered and can only be proven by appraising his conduct and actions when he was the chief executive officer at WorldCom. Ebbers was charged with conspiracy, security fraud, and making false filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission. (Ronald B, 2002). Several civil lawsuits were brought before Ebbers and other senior executives of WorldCom including the former chief financial officer Scott Sullivan but however dismissed after Ebbers and the other senior agreed to distribute over six billion dollars plus interest to stakeholders who had invested their money in the company stocks (Jennifer B, 2007). Ebbers was also charged with the indictment of the state securities laws by defrauding investors of WorldCom on numerous occasions between the periods of January 2001 and March 2002 (Larry N, 2004). Ebbers defense claimed that he did not receive a fair trial since they were unable to call senior executives from WorldCom to testify who would have cleared Ebbers by supporting his claims that he had no knowledge of the improper accounting practices which were not in accordance with the generally accepted accounting practices. The defense claimed that the trial judge should have allowed former WorldCom executives to testify without risking being charged with engaging or conspiring with the fraudulent and criminal activities that were happening around the time at WorldCom (Alan A, 2006). Ebbers’s defense also claimed that the sentence handed over to Ebbers was outrageous and not in any way justifiable since they were not given enough opportunity and authority to mount a strong defense like the prosecution (Patrick M, 2005). From the federal investigations carried out after the securities and exchange commission filed for a civil lawsuit against WorldCom and its executives, reliable evidence shows that Ebbers together with the other senior executives were guilty, and so the conviction ruling made by the trial judge would be deemed to be right. Ebbers claiming to have no knowledge was not sufficient reason and defense to plead innocence (Patrick M, 2005). However, the sentence delivered to Ebbers by the trial judge could have been subject to question given that other senior executives were given very much less harsh sentences than Ebbers, including Scott Sullivan who openly admitted to having carried out the fraud with full awareness of its repercussions. He was only charged for a five years sentence, unlike Ebbers who received a twenty-five-year sentence (Larry N, 2004). Certain corporate governance issues were challenged on the influence of both Scott Sullivan and Bernie Ebbers who were both senior executives at WorldCom on the audit committee. It is said that both senior executives had a strong influence on the audit committee, therefore, making it easier for them to alter the financial statements to make them look favorable to their advantage. This was a responsibility that should have been assumed by independent directors with great financial expertise (Alan