The Supreme Court of Liberia has reserved its decision on the high-profile petition for a writ of prohibition filed by former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah and four former officials, following a tense hearing that revealed deep divisions over national security secrecy, executive immunity, and financial accountability.
During arguments, newly seated Associate Justice Boakai Kanneh pressed defense lawyer Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson to explain why his clients had submitted to an investigation by the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission if, as they now claim, the matter falls squarely under national security.
Justice Kanneh, who has been on medical leave since his August 20 commissioning, questioned how the defendants could raise national security for the first time at the Supreme Court, given that they had previously cooperated with LACC investigators.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
Cllr. Johnson strongly argued that prosecuting Tweah and his co-defendants is essentially equivalent to prosecuting former President George M. Weah. He cautioned that allowing the case to move forward would "open the door" for future governments to go after members of the National Security Council for actions taken under presidential orders.
He argued that the defendants' actions were protected by national security secrecy and referenced the National Security Agency Act, along with Articles 50 and 61 of the Constitution, which allocate executive power to the president and provide presidential immunity for acts performed while in office. He emphasized that revealing how funds were used for NSC operations would compromise classified information and threaten national security.
Former Associate Justice Wilkins Michael Wright, also representing the defense, argued that only the General Auditing Commission, and only under a president's order, has the authority to audit classified expenses. He stated that LACC lacked the legal power to investigate funds related to alleged national security issues.
The defense requested the Court to grant their petition and stop all lower-court proceedings indefinitely.
Prosecution Cites Samukai Precedent
But Montserrado County Attorney Cllr. Richard Scott Jr., representing the prosecution, argued that the case is not about national security at all. He pointed to the Brownie Samukai ruling, where the Supreme Court stated that subordinates must refuse illegal orders even if such refusal costs them their jobs.
Scott told the justices that none of the transfers in question were requested by the National Security Council, the National Joint Security, or even the FIA itself. He said the funds were instead diverted through the FIA's operational accounts and disbursed among the defendants, undermining their national-security claim.
He urged the Court to reject the petition and allow the criminal proceedings to resume, saying "this case has nothing to do with national security" and everything to do with public financial accountability.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Nine-Month Delay, Sensitive Allegations
The case has been delayed at the Supreme Court for nearly nine months since the Court issued a stay order on March 20, 2025, halting all proceedings while it reviews the matter. The petition was filed after Criminal Court "C" Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie rejected a defense motion to dismiss based on national-security grounds.
Prosecutors accuse Tweah, former Acting Justice Minister Nyenati Tuan, ex-National Security Adviser Jefferson Karmoh, ex-FIA Director Stanley S. Ford, and ex-FIA Controller D. Moses P. Cooper of approving the unauthorized transfer of L$1,055,152,540 and US$500,000 from the Central Bank of Liberia to FIA accounts. They state that the funds are still unaccounted for.
The Supreme Court is now weighing whether the lower court acted constitutionally in rejecting the national-security immunity claim.
Justices Recuse Themselves
Associate Justices Ceaineh D. Clinton Johnson and Jamesetta Howard Wolokolie recused themselves from the hearing, noting they had previously ruled on aspects of the matter.
With the arguments concluded, the full bench has reserved ruling.
