Criminal Court 'C' on yesterday reserved its ruling on whether former Acting Chairperson of the Liberia Telecommunications Authority (LTA), Abdullah Kamara, should be dropped from criminal prosecution in the US$3.6 million economic sabotage case that involved TAMMA Corporation and the former Chairperson of the LTA, Madam Ewina Zackpah.
Kamara's lawyers had argued that since 2024, he had relinquished his position as chief executive officer for TAMMA Corporation, and that the indictment wrongly labelled him as the chief executive officer for TAMMA Corporation-as a result, he is asking the court to drop him from the indictment.
The defense further argued that Abudallah Kamara was wrongly labelled as the chief executive officer of TAMMA Corporation, whereas the board resolution named. Fabian Lavelanet, as the new chief executive officer of TAMMA Corporation.
"Kamara has no longer been TAMMA Corporation's CEO as of effective May 10, 2024, over one year ago, and was replaced by Fabian Lavelanet," they argued.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
According to the defense, TAMMA Corporation as the Corporation has perpetual existence and, instead of the present CEO in person, Abudallah Kamara was labelled as the CEO, against the Corporation's operations and board resolution.
They further argued that during the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission's (LACC) investigation of TAMMA Corporation into the alleged crimes, Abdullah Kamara made it clear that he is no longer Chief executive officer for the Corporation, but Fabian Lavelanet is.
However, Kamara was the CEO of the corporation when the alleged crimes were committed, according to the 2025 indictment.
Additionally, the new CEO also made a voluntary statement before the same investigation, acknowledging the fact that he Fabian Lavelanet was the current CEO for TAMMA Corporation.
"Notwithstanding all of these presentations made by Kamara and the new CEO, he was still wrongly and illegally labelled as the CEO for TAMMA Corporation," the defense lawyers emphasized. "Kamara was targeted and defamed and subjected to public shame, injustice and disgrace by wrongly and illegally naming him as TAMMA Corporation's current CEO," the defense maintained.
In counter argument, the prosecution said, the indictment did not properly address Kamara as former CEO, which is harmless, and is no ground to drop him from the indictment.
According to the prosecution, they have the right to make a correction in the indictment from chief executive officer to former chief executive officer for TAMMA Corporation, which does not affect the substantial right of the party.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
They also argued that these crimes were committed when Kamara was the CEO for TAMMA Corporation. And, whilst he served as CEO of TAMMA Corporation, the company was used as a conduit to divert and siphon US$3,586,496.33 from the internal revenue of Liberia.
"Therefore, labeling him as the current CEO is inconsequential, since it has been clearly established that he committed these crimes prior to relinquishing his role as CEO," the prosecution further argued.
Prosecution also argued that at the time the crimes were committed, Kamara was the CEO for TAMMA Corporation and did knowingly and intentionally committed the crime as charged in the indictment, prior to the purported and self-serving board resolution.
"All of the facts inserted in the indictment are pointing to co-defendant Abudallah Kamara's actions sufficiently, and there is no way he can transfer liability to the new CEO or to use the company to shield himself from these crimes whilst he served as CEO," prosecution further argued.
They added, "it is unreasonable to infer that the prosecution does not know or may not have known that Abudallah Kamara is the culprit, who was invited and investigated for which he has been found culpable, thus proving to any reasonable person that Kamara is the sole intended culprit," argued the prosecution.
These are some of the arguments on which the court expected to make a determination.
