The Capitol arson case in Monrovia, Liberia has taken a dramatic turn as the defense team challenges Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie’s order for their clients to undergo medical examinations at AMI Expeditionary Healthcare. The defense argues that AMI, despite its international reputation, is not truly independent due to its contractual ties with the Liberian government, including the Ministry of Justice and the Liberia National Police. They contend that this connection casts doubt on the impartiality of any medical reports produced by AMI, particularly concerning allegations of torture and sodomy against the defendants while in police custody. Citing a previous incident involving co-defendant Thomas Etheridge, whose collapse after alleged torture was attributed to malaria by AMI doctors, the defense emphasizes their distrust in the facility’s ability to provide an unbiased assessment. They insist on an examination conducted by an entirely independent medical institution, free from any government influence.
The defense’s distrust extends beyond AMI to encompass the broader issue of medical evaluations within the Liberian justice system. They have previously objected to examinations at the John F. Kennedy Medical Center (JFK), another government-contracted facility, arguing that its ties to the Ministry of Justice create a clear conflict of interest. Their motion alleges that the defendants suffered torture at the hands of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Liberia National Police (LNP), resulting in serious health issues including blurred vision and urinary problems. They maintain that only an independent medical team can objectively assess their condition.
The defense also contests the Sheriff’s return, a report based on information from the Superintendent of the Monrovia Central Prison, dismissing it as hearsay and “false and misleading” due to its lack of direct testimony from the Sheriff. They further argue that the order for medical examination was never formally served on the defendants or their lawyers, yet counsels were unjustly fined for contempt of court.
The prosecution, however, views the defense’s motion as a delaying tactic. While claiming no objection to the defendants receiving an independent medical examination, they allege that the defendants previously refused to comply with a court order to appear at JFK for evaluation. This refusal, they suggest, underscores the defense’s intention to obstruct the legal process.
Judge Willie’s ruling reflects a partial agreement with the prosecution. He criticized the defense for “gross disrespect” in failing to comply with the court’s initial order and imposed fines on several defense lawyers for contempt. However, while acknowledging the defense’s concerns about JFK, he ordered the defendants to undergo examinations at AMI, deeming it an “internationally recognized facility providing independent and professional medical services.” He emphasized AMI’s adherence to international standards as justification for its presumed neutrality. The Ministry of Justice is to cover the costs of the examinations, and the medical reports are due to the court by September 17, 2025, to facilitate a decision on the pending Motion to Suppress Evidence.
Despite the ruling, the defense remains steadfast in its objection. They insist that AMI’s contractual relationship with the government renders it no different from JFK in terms of potential bias. They characterize the court’s decision as unjust and prejudicial, undermining the defendants’ fundamental rights. This ongoing dispute highlights the complex interplay between legal proceedings, medical assessments, and allegations of state-sponsored violence within the context of the Liberian justice system. The defense’s persistent challenge underscores the critical need for ensuring impartiality and safeguarding the rights of the accused, particularly when allegations of torture are involved. The impending medical reports from AMI and the subsequent ruling on the Motion to Suppress Evidence will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of this high-profile case.
