By Lincoln G. Peters
Temple of Justice, Monrovia, April 21, 2026: Prosecutors in the ongoing corruption trial of former Finance and Development Planning Minister Samuel D. Tweah, Jr., and others say his testimony amounts to “reconstructing the law” to square it with alleged illegal acts.
The case centers on the transfer of about US$6.5 million to the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA), which the defendants maintained was executed in the interest of national security.
On Monday, April 20, 2026, Tweah took the witness stand in Criminal Court “C,” offering a lengthy, technical defense that prosecutors say was riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies.
Tweah, who served from January 2018 to January 2024, is on trial with four former officials over allegations they authorized the illegal use of more than L$1 billion and US$500,000 in public funds through the FIA.
His appearance, observers say, has raised fresh questions about the legality of the transactions and the accuracy of his explanations under oath.
Tweah sought to ground his authority in two instruments—the Public Financial Management (PFM) Law and the National Budget.
However, as he walked the court through his interpretation, prosecutors contend his narrative shifted repeatedly, prompting concerns he was redefining standard financial procedures to defend disputed transactions.
At one point, the former minister argued that agency requests are not required to trigger spending, insisting that passage of the national budget alone vests him with authority to expend funds.
Earlier, he had told the court: “The request for resources is the most sufficient trigger for expenditure.”
The contrasting explanations, prosecutors argue, show that Tweah was reconstructing the law to fit his actions, rather than stating the law as written.
Prosecution also pointed to what it called a major inconsistency in Tweah’s claim that emergency-related spending becomes legal once approved by the National Security Council (NSC).
He told the jury: “Once the NSC approves the intervention, the minister’s authority is complete.”
But prosecutors note the PFM Law is explicit that any spending beyond the budget must be reported to the Legislature under Section 26.
Tweah did not testify that the FIA-related transfers were ever reported to lawmakers, prosecutors emphasized.
They argue NSC approval cannot override statutory reporting requirements and that his failure to mention legislative notification points to a procedural breach.
Tweah also defended the use of the “direct debit” mechanism to move funds to the FIA, telling jurors it was lawful.
He said: “Direct debit is not outside the budget circle.”
But he later acknowledged: “It is not pre-allotted but may be allotted subsequently.”
The statement, courtroom observers say, raises a basic question: if a line item is neither pre-allotted nor later supported by documented allotment, where does it fall within the budget framework?
Prosecutors say the explanation effectively concedes their point—that the transfers operated outside the proper budgetary process, at least for a period.
When questioned about the absence of written requests or documentation authorizing the FIA transfers, Tweah brushed the gaps aside as immaterial.
He suggested investigators were too quick to treat missing documents as proof of wrongdoing, likening it to concluding money is stolen simply because it is no longer seen. The trial continues in Criminal Court “C” at the Temple of Justice.
