The ongoing Capitol Arson trial of former Speaker, Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa and thirteen other defendants, including three sitting lawmakers, was abruptly halted on Thursday, September 4, by Judge Roosevelt Willie of Criminal Court 'A'.
Judge Willie was scheduled yesterday to deliver a judgment on whether the prosecution's evidence of call logs relies heavily on statements that six of the detained defendants were tortured to make while being held at the custody of the National Security Agency (NSA).
Willie's decision to halt proceedings yesterday was prompted by a dramatic courtroom scene during the September 2 hearing, when two of the defendants removed their orange prison jumpsuits to reveal to the public bruises allegedly resulting from beatings sustained while in a National Security Services holding cell.
Willie did not just suspend the judgment, he ordered a fuller medical examination to test those claims.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
"When the Court looked at the grounds and the reasons that were stated for which this Court should suppress the discovery or the evidence presented to the defense, the Court found out that almost all of the grounds were based on law issues," Willie said in his ruling.
However, according to Willie, the Court realized that there is one ground that is factual and that ground is torture and sodomization.
"So, the Court decided not to do the ruling today, but to find out through medical investigation as to whether the defendants were tortured," the ruling further quoted the judge.
"Therefore," Willie emphasized, "the Court hereby orders the Clerk to do a communication to the John F. Kennedy Medical Center, authorizing, meaning through the State, the Monrovia Central Prison to have the six (6) defendants taken to the John F. Kennedy Medical Center to investigate through Medical Examination to find out as to whether or not those defendants were tortured and sodomized; and report back to this Court on or before Tuesday, September 9, 2025."
The defense lawyers had repeatedly argued that the court should exclude the evidence because it was allegedly tainted by torture and sodomization.
Purpose of the Examination
Evidence of torture:
Medical evidence can link physical injuries to specific acts of torture, such as scorch marks from electroshock or bruises from blows with an object.
If a confession is used against a defendant, medical findings can show that it was obtained under duress, making it inadmissible in court.
The examination provides vital proof for the victim and helps hold accountable those responsible for the tortured.
The Istanbul Protocol provides guidelines for conducting forensic examinations of torture allegations, outlining the necessary elements to effectively document torture.
Examinations must be private and confidential to ensure a full and honest account of the torture.
Doctors must allow ample time to conduct detailed physical and psychological assessments to thoroughly investigate the claims.
How the Examination is Conducted
1. Physical examination:
A doctor conducts a head-to-toe physical assessment, looking for injuries and documenting their location, size, and characteristics.
2. Psychological assessment:
The examination may also include assessing for psychological trauma, which is a common consequence of torture.
3. Documentation:
Detailed notes and reports are created, often accompanied by photographs of injuries.
4. Expert opinion:
A medical expert provides an opinion on whether the clinical findings are consistent with the account of torture, which is of significant value to the court.
The Role of the Court
Admissibility of evidence:
The court considers the medical evidence to decide if the torture claims are credible.
Fair Trial:
If the court finds the claims of torture to be credible, it will ensure that no statement obtained through such treatment is used against the defendant.
The defendants were indicted for multiple offences, including criminal attempt to commit murder, criminal mischief, criminal conspiracy, criminal facilitation, criminal solicitation, release of destructive forces, reckless burning or exploding, and reckless endangerment. Prosecutors allege that the December 18 blaze was not an accident, but the result of a carefully orchestrated plan devised the night before by Koffa and his associates.
These relate to mobile phone and email communications between alleged conspirators, which include Montserrado County Representatives Dixon W. Seboe (District #16) and Abu B. Kamara (District #15), as well as Grand Gedeh County Representative Jacob C. Deebie (District #3). The remaining defendants are: Kivi Bah, alias Kaba; Jerry Pokah, alias Tyrese; Stephen M. Broh; John Nyanti; Amos Koffa; Eric Susay; Thomas Isaac Etheridge; Patience Bestman; Harrilyn Grace Johnson; and Christian Kofa.
The mobile telephone calls and emails which were said to have been intercepted by the police are grounds for the case.
According to court files, some members of the group obtained gasoline and other incendiary materials late on December 17. In the early hours of the following day, they allegedly carried out the attack on the Capitol, setting fire to the joint chambers, cutting electrical and electronic wiring, and destroying furniture. Damages are estimated at US$3.78 million.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The prosecution's case is bolstered by audio recordings said to capture the conspirators discussing their intentions. In one recording, co-defendant Eric Susay is heard telling Thomas Isaac Etheridge that "you and your co-defendants were in readiness to receive gasoline to commence the arson attack on the Capitol Building.
The defense lawyers further argued that the evidence related to the collection and analysis by the National Security Agency (NSA) of telephone conversations of the defendants, was obtained, while some of them (defendants) were being held in the NSA's detention cell, which they claim is a clear violation.
They also allege that all of the evidence used by the prosecution was illegally obtained by the National Security Agency.
According to the defense, the evidence lacks a proper chain of custody, including the date, place, and time.
They also argued that their clients were tortured and sexually assaulted while being handcuffed by the NSA with the intent to extract confessions or information.
However, the prosecution strongly opposed the motion, urging the court to deny the defense's application and allow the trial to proceed.
