Monrovia- Defence attorneys representing former House Speaker Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa and four other lawmakers have called on the Monrovia City Court to dismiss all charges against their clients, arguing that prosecutors have failed to present any physical or direct evidence linking them to the December 2024 “arson attack” on the Capitol Building.
By Willie N. Tokpah
During a preliminary hearing held at the Monrovia City Court on Tuesday, June 10, defence lawyers asserted that the state’s case is built on assumptions and indirect associations rather than substantive proof.
The hearing, which seeks to determine whether the accused should be formally indicted, comes in the wake of a high-profile political controversy that rocked the national legislature late last year.
State prosecutors have claimed that Koffa and the others conspired in the attack based on recorded conversations and Koffa’s alleged reference to some of the initial suspects as “his boy.”
However, the defence team objected, emphasising that such statements do not constitute a legal basis for criminal liability.
“There is no evidence, no video, no eyewitness, that places our clients at the scene of the crime or proves they planned or supported this criminal act,” one of the defence attorneys argued.
“The state is attempting to stretch words and personal associations into criminal conduct, which the law does not permit.”
Former Speaker Koffa, along with Representatives Dixon Seboe, Abu Kamara, Prescilla Cooper, and Jacob Debee II, were charged with multiple felonies including Arson, Criminal Mischief, Criminal Facilitation, Reckless Endangerment, Attempted Murder, and Criminal Conspiracy.
These charges stem from a fire that damaged the Capitol during a tense standoff over legislative leadership.
All, except Representative Cooper, who opted to waive her right to a preliminary hearing, were formally arraigned and briefly detained before being released on bail on Monday, June 9.
Despite the gravity of the accusations, the defence maintains that the charges are politically motivated and legally insufficient.
“This is a trial by implication, not evidence,” the lawyers continued.
“And in a court of law, suspicion is not a substitute for proof.”
Legal analysts observing the case have noted the unusually rapid pace of proceedings and raised questions about the lack of forensic or testimonial evidence from the prosecution.
If the court finds merit in the defence’s argument, the case could be dismissed before ever reaching trial.
The preliminary investigation continues, with the court expected to rule soon on whether the matter will proceed to indictment.
As the legal battle unfolds, the accused lawmakers have denied any involvement in the incident, pledging to clear their names and continue serving their constituencies.
