By Lincoln G. Peters
Temple of Justice, Monrovia, Liberia, March 17, 2026: Lawyers representing former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah and his co-defendants in the US$6.2 million economic sabotage trial have sharply criticized the government’s delay in producing all material evidence, calling it “completely unfair and prejudicial.”
During Thursday’s juror selection, the defense raised procedural objections, arguing that the prosecution’s failure to provide critical evidence undermines the defendants’ right to a fair trial.
“The defense can’t adequately prepare a case when it has not been fully acquainted with the evidence intended to be used against the defendants. This situation is completely unfair and prejudicial. The prosecution should be compelled to immediately disclose all materials forming part of the case,” the defense urged.
On March 12, 14 of 15 jurors were selected to serve in the high-profile economic sabotage trial. Criminal Court “C” Judge Ousman Feija announced that the remaining juror would be chosen on Wednesday, March 18. The process concluded Thursday with nine jurors already seated.
Subsequently, a second pool of 20 prospective jurors was summoned, from which both parties selected an additional five, leaving three as alternates. This brought the total to fifteen jurors to begin the trial.
Defense counsel formally requested that the court order the prosecution to provide all documentary evidence intended for use at trial.
They argued that access to such material, commonly referred to as discovery, is guaranteed under Liberia’s Constitution and statutory law.
According to the defense, when the case was first called before Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie (Criminal Court “A”), prosecutors admitted they did not possess all relevant evidence, as several government institutions, including the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning, the Financial Intelligence Agency, and the Central Bank, had been subpoenaed to produce key records.
At the prosecution’s request, the court allowed the proceedings to continue while efforts to obtain the documents were underway. However, the defense asserts that the prosecution has yet to produce the materials, despite the trial moving forward.
In response, prosecutors told the court that discovery had already occurred during an earlier pre-trial conference and that defense counsel, including Cllr. Arthur Johnson was present when the materials were presented and discussed.
The prosecution maintains it has complied with all procedural requirements and that the defense has already received the information necessary to proceed.
