Despite the gravity of the charges—ranging from arson and criminal conspiracy to attempted murder—the case against former Speaker Koffa appears tenuous at best, with no direct evidence linking him to the planning or execution of the alleged attack.
Monrovia – One of the most consequential indictments in Liberia’s recent legal history is unfolding at Criminal Court ‘A’ at the Temple of Justice, raising questions about the line between accountability and political targeting.
A Special Grand Jury for Montserrado County has handed down a sweeping 63-count indictment implicating former House Speaker J. Fonati Koffa and more than a dozen others in the December 18, 2024, arson attack that gutted the joint chambers of the Capitol Building.
Despite the gravity of the charges—ranging from arson and criminal conspiracy to attempted murder—the case against Koffa appears tenuous at best, with no direct evidence linking him to the planning or execution of the alleged attack.
Implication Without Specifics
The indictment, filed on June 16, repeatedly accuses Koffa of providing “support and facilitation” to the alleged ringleaders of the Capitol attack. Yet, it fails to define or detail the nature of that alleged support. Legal experts say the language used is vague and unsupported by concrete evidence.
At the heart of the prosecution’s claim is a conversation cited in Count Three, in which co-defendant Thomas Etheridge allegedly instructs another suspect, Amos Kofa, to “go to Hon. J. Fonati Koffa’s house” after the Capitol had been set ablaze.
The only other purported link is that two of Koffa’s former staffers—Patience Bestman and Harrilyn Grace Johnson—were members of a private chatroom in which participants allegedly discussed deleting evidence from Etheridge’s phone. The indictment does not allege that Koffa was part of the chatroom, aware of its content, or gave any directive to conceal evidence.
“There’s no act, no command, and no utterance from Hon. Koffa throughout the entire indictment,” said a Monrovia-based legal analyst, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Under Liberian law, to be liable for conspiracy or facilitation, there must be proof of intent and an overt act. That’s missing here.”
Absent from Key Evidence
Unlike other defendants, Koffa is not heard in any of the intercepted communications detailing the attack. For instance, co-defendant Eric Susay is alleged to have boasted about assaulting a police officer and handing the officer’s weapon over to former Executive Protection Service (EPS) agents.
Other recordings outline a plot to use chemical agents and tear gas to block lawmakers from accessing the joint chambers. Koffa’s name does not appear in any of these conversations.
Despite this, the indictment repeatedly uses the phrase: “with the support and facilitation of J. Fonati Koffa.” But it never alleges that he funded the plot, supplied materials, issued orders, or attended planning meetings.
Political Undercurrents?
The indictment comes in the wake of a politically charged power struggle in the Legislature. Just weeks before the attack, the Supreme Court struck down an attempt by lawmakers aligned with the ruling Unity Party to remove Koffa from the Speakership, declaring their actions unconstitutional.
In that context, some observers suggest that Koffa’s inclusion in the indictment may be more about political retaliation than legal merit.
“The timeline and the context cannot be ignored,” said a legislative aide familiar with recent House leadership disputes. “This attack came right after the Supreme Court halted the move to oust Koffa. Now he’s charged—based on minimal evidence—with masterminding the same act.”
Koffa has yet to issue a public statement, but sources close to his legal team say they are preparing to challenge the indictment. A motion to dismiss for lack of evidence, or a motion to sever his case from the other defendants, is expected in the coming days.
The Legal Threshold
Liberian criminal law sets a high bar for conspiracy and facilitation. The Penal Code requires not just affiliation or passive awareness but a demonstrable act that materially assists in the commission of a crime.
“The law does not punish guilt by association or employment,” noted a senior attorney at the Temple of Justice. “Absent proof of intent or active participation, these allegations are unlikely to stand.”
Legal experts argue that unless the prosecution can prove that Koffa authorized or had knowledge of his staff’s alleged activities, he cannot be held criminally liable for their actions.
“The indictment doesn’t even allege that Hon. Koffa saw the messages or knew the chatroom existed,” added the Monrovia-based legal analyst. “That’s a huge evidentiary gap.”
As the case moves forward, many will be watching to see whether the prosecution can substantiate its claims or whether Koffa’s indictment is an example of politicized justice. While the Capitol fire was a national tragedy that warrants a thorough investigation and accountability, the legal standard must remain grounded in facts—not speculation or association.
For now, what remains clear is that the indictment against J. Fonati Koffa hinges more on circumstantial inferences than on direct evidence—a point likely to be central in his defense.
