Paragraph 1: The Indictment and Allegations
Former Liberian Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah Jr., along with four other officials from the Weah administration, has been indicted on charges of economic sabotage, theft, illegal disbursement and expenditure of public funds, criminal conspiracy, misuse of public money, and criminal facilitation. The Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) alleges that Tweah, Cllr. Nyanti Tuan (former Acting Minister of Justice), Stanley S. Ford (former Director General of Financial Intelligence), D. Moses P. Cooper (former Financial Intelligence Comptroller), and Jefferson Karmoh (former National Security Advisor to President George Weah) conspired to illegally transfer US$500,000 and L$1,055,152,540 (Liberian dollars) from the Central Bank of Liberia through the operational account of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), violating the Financial Intelligence Agency Act of 2022.
Paragraph 2: The Defense’s Motion to Dismiss
The defendants filed a motion with Criminal Court “C” Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie seeking dismissal of the charges, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to national security implications surrounding the case. They claimed their actions, particularly those related to financial transactions, were undertaken in the interest of national security and therefore fell outside the court’s purview.
Paragraph 3: The Judge’s Ruling and Rationale
Judge Willie denied the motion to dismiss, asserting that the LACC presented no evidence of a formal request or directive from the National Joint Security, the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA), or former President Weah authorizing the transfer of funds. The judge emphasized that based on the available information, the defendants appeared to have acted outside the constitutional privileges afforded to presidential agents under Article 61 of the Liberian Constitution, and thus must answer to the charges in court. He ruled that the prosecution should be allowed to present its case.
Paragraph 4: The Defense’s Response and Argument
Following the ruling, defense lawyer Cllr. Johnson reiterated the argument that the court lacked jurisdiction, claiming the judge overstepped his authority. He contended that the judge was not empowered to interpret constitutional provisions, as that authority rests with the full bench of the Supreme Court. He also raised concerns about the potential exposure of sensitive national security operations and expenditures, particularly those related to election security, if the case were to proceed.
Paragraph 5: The Prosecution’s Case and Arguments
The prosecution asserts that the National Security Council’s (NSC) financial transactions, even those related to national security, are subject to legal scrutiny and audit. They cite the National Security Reform and Intelligence Act of 2011, highlighting the requirement for independent procurement and accounting systems within security institutions, including the NSC. The prosecution further stresses the General Auditing Commission’s mandate to conduct annual audits of the NSC’s accounts and the need for legislative oversight of national security agencies. They argue that invoking national security does not provide immunity from criminal investigation or prosecution if illegal acts occurred.
Paragraph 6: The Continuing Legal Battle and Implications
The defense maintains that the indictment violates principles of statutory and executive immunity, arguing that members of the NSC, acting as advisors to the President, should not be compelled to disclose sensitive information related to national security operations. They believe that judicial review of NSC actions could jeopardize national security protocols. This case raises critical questions about the balance between national security considerations and the pursuit of justice in cases alleging financial impropriety. The defense’s claim that the prosecution poses a risk to national security by exposing sensitive information will likely be a key point of contention as the legal proceedings continue. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the accountability of high-ranking officials and the future handling of cases involving national security matters.
