Former Finance Minister Tweah and others are pleading immunity here in the ongoing economic sabotage.
Monrovia, February 25, 2025/Former Finance Minister Samuel Tweah and others have filed a motion for dismissal, pleading immunity to charges of economic sabotage.
The others are Cllr. Nyenati Tuan, Former Acting Minister of Justice and Attorney and, at the same time, former Solicitor General; Stanley S. Ford, former Director of the Financial Intelligence Agency; Jefferson Karmoh, former National Security Advisor and former Secretary and Statutory member of the National Security Council; and Mr. D. Moses P. Cooper, former Comptroller of the Financial Intelligence Agency.
In a motion for dismissal filed on Monday, February 24, 2025, the former Government officials argued that they are immune to prosecution because the activities for which they have been indicted are based on National Security matters.
“That the investigation conducted by the LACC, from which grew the Indictment now subject of this motion and the case currently venue before this Court surround activities and actions of members of the National Security Council of Liberia, which activities, under the laws cited supra in this motion, prohibit the disclosure of information which cannot be subject of judicial review,” the former officials argued in a motion filed by their lawyers.
The defendants further argued that economic sabotage, theft, and related offenses, are legally deficient, constitutionally violative of their fundamental rights as enshrined in Article III 21(g) of the 1986 Constitution.
According to the defendants, the indictment improperly seeks to criminalize constitutional, national security, statutory, and discretionary acts performed by officials in the discharge of their official responsibilities to further the Republic’s national security interests.
As such, they maintained that any such judicial process, as now being contemplated by the indictment, to review or ascertain the actions or activities of members of the National Security Council potentially risk exposing or disclosing classified and confidential government communications and intelligence.
Such a disclosure, the defendants explained, would be a direct contravention of the National Security Council Act.
The National Security Reformed and Intelligence Act of 2011, as found in Section 3 (f), provides that “Every member, personnel or employee of the National Security Council shall be deemed a trustee of the secrets of the Republic and when entering upon the duties of the council shall be, in case of members, sworn by the chair and in case of the personnel and employees, by the secretary, not to divulge any information which has come to his or her knowledge by reason of such membership or employment with the council except as required in the course of duty.
Any violation of this oath shall subject the offender(s) to a fine of One Hundred Thousand Liberian Dollars or up to ten years imprisonment or both. The oath shall be binding and enforceable on every member, personnel or employee of the council for a period of twenty years after severance of his or her relationship with the council.”
It could be recalled that in December 2024, the Ministry of Justice petitioned the Supreme Court to halt proceedings, expressing concerns over the validity of an $8 million property bond approved by Criminal Court ‘C’ Judge A. Blamo Dixon. Associate Justice Yarmie Quiqui Gbeisay responded by issuing a temporary stay on the trial and scheduling a conference for December 10, 2024, to deliberate on the prosecution’s objections.
Subsequently, in January 2025, Justice Gbeisay ordered Judge Dixon’s recusal from the case following the prosecution’s claims of judicial bias.
The defense has consistently criticized the prosecution for failing to provide necessary evidence, accusing them of employing delayed tactics that infringe upon the defendants’ right to a speedy trial.
In February 2025, Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie of Criminal Court ‘A’ mandated that prosecutors submit all pertinent evidence to the defense, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural timelines.
As of February 24, 2025, the case remains in a state of legal flux, with defense lawyers pushing for dismissal due to ongoing prosecutorial delays and questions surrounding judicial impartiality. The judiciary’s forthcoming decisions will be pivotal in determining the trajectory of this high-profile trial.
A hearing of the Motion is scheduled for Wednesday this week.
