A Criminal Court jury on Friday acquitted former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah Jr. and former Financial Intelligence Agency Controller Moses P. Cooper of all charges, citing the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The same jury convicted three other co-defendants on counts of theft and criminal facilitation.
The verdict closes a months-long trial that centered on the alleged diversion of L$1.055 billion and US$500,000 in state funds under the administration of former President George Weah.
Acquittals Hinge on “Reasonable Doubt” Standard
In criminal proceedings, the State bears the burden of proving a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to each element of the offense charged. Evidence that merely raises suspicion or probability is not enough. Unless the prosecution meets this burden, the law requires acquittal.
It was on that basis the jury found reasonable doubt and acquitted Tweah and Cooper on all counts: economic sabotage, theft of property, money laundering, criminal conspiracy, and criminal facilitation.
Split Verdict: Three Co-Defendants Convicted
While Tweah and Cooper walked free, the jury found sufficient evidence to convict three co-defendants:
- Cllr. Nyanti Tuan, former Acting Justice Minister and Solicitor General
- Stanley Ford, Director General of the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA)
- Jefferson Karmoh, former National Security Advisor to President Weah
Tuan, Ford, and Karmoh were found guilty on counts of criminal facilitation and theft of property. Sentencing is expected to be scheduled in the coming days.
LACC Testimony Undercuts Theft Allegations
The prosecution’s case was dealt a significant blow during cross-examination of Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) lead investigator Baba Mohammed Boika.
Boika testified that his inquiry “did not extend to how the funds were spent” and was limited to identifying recipient institutions. Under questioning, he further conceded that investigators “could not establish whether the money was personally misappropriated or determine who ultimately received it.”
“The defendants could not inform investigators which national security agencies received what allocations. On that basis, we moved forward with the indictment,” Boika told the court.
The admission raised a central question for jurors: If investigators did not trace or document how the funds were disbursed or applied, on what basis did they conclude the funds were stolen?
Defense: Transfers Authorized Under National Security Framework
Taking the stand in his own defense, Tweah testified that the State failed to show the National Security Council had not authorized the disbursements. He told the court prosecutors presented no evidence of personal benefit or communications indicating a conspiracy.
The prosecution’s initial argument — that Tweah lacked legal authority for the transfers — was “significantly weakened” by defense evidence and witness testimony presented during trial.
During his testimony, co-defendant and former Acting Justice Minister Nyanti Tuan told jurors that written instructions were “irrelevant and immaterial” in national security matters. He maintained that all actions taken by Tweah were within the NSC framework.
Where the Prosecution Fell Short
The LACC’s case against Tweah collapsed on three main evidentiary gaps, according to legal analysts who followed the trial:
No clear money trail
Lead investigator Boika testified that multiple security institutions denied receiving the L$1.055 billion + US$500,000. The key question — which joint security agency actually received the money — was never answered in court.
No proof of intent
Economic sabotage requires willful intent to damage the economy. The State did not show Tweah intended to sabotage or that he personally benefited. Tweah told the court there was “no proof, no convincing argument” of intent.
National security defense wasn’t rebutted
The defense argued National Security Council procedures make written authorization “irrelevant and immaterial.” Prosecutors did not produce witnesses or declassified records to show the process was abused.
In short, the indictment charged Tweah with approving transfers but never delved into how they might have resulted in his personal gain or grounds for sabotage. Jurors cited those gaps during deliberations and returned reasonable doubt.
What’s Next
The three convicted defendants face sentencing on the theft and facilitation counts. Their legal teams have not yet indicated whether they will appeal. The LACC has not commented on whether it will seek to retry any aspect of the case.
The verdict marks one of the most high-profile applications of the reasonable doubt standard in Liberia’s recent anti-corruption efforts.
