Monrovia — Criminal Court "A" Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie has ruled that a prosecution witness in the ongoing Capitol Building arson trial may not testify about the contents of an international fire experts' report, insisting that only the report's authors can speak to its findings in court.
The ruling was delivered on the 31st day of jury sitting, when the court sustained a prosecution objection to defense questions regarding fire analysis reports. Judge Willie described the line of questioning as extraneous and contrary to prior rulings, stressing that a witness cannot testify about a document he neither authored nor authenticated.
Despite objections from defense lawyers, the court held that the witness "must not answer," citing the best evidence rule and the absence of direct authorship or verification.
Allegations of Withheld Evidence
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
The ruling comes amid growing controversy after defense lawyers alleged that the Government of Liberia deliberately withheld an international fire investigation report believed to contain findings favorable to the defense.
The allegation surfaced during proceedings on Tuesday, December 16, when the defense disclosed that an expert report prepared by a Minnesota-based international fire investigation team was never turned over by the prosecution during discovery. Defense counsel further claimed that the prosecution has repeatedly objected to any reference to the report in open court, effectively keeping it outside the evidentiary record.
Legal analysts warn that the suppression of potentially exculpatory evidence--if established--would amount to a serious violation of due process and fair-trial guarantees
International Experts' Findings
Defense lawyers argue that the exclusion of the international expert report raises serious questions about prosecutorial transparency and ethics in a case of major national importance. The court has not yet ruled on whether the report itself will be admitted into evidence.
The report was authored by three internationally experienced fire experts--Fire Chief (Ret.) Jerry Streich, Fire Chief (Ret.) Ken Prillaman, and Fire Chief (Ret.) Mark Lynde--who were invited by the Liberian government to investigate the Capitol Building fire. It was submitted to Police Inspector General Gregory Coleman in March 2025.
The experts arrived in Monrovia on February 28, 2025, after repeated efforts by Liberian authorities to secure assistance from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) proved unsuccessful.
While acknowledging the difficult conditions faced by local responders, the experts sharply criticized the Liberia National Fire Service (LNFS) report, describing it as incomplete, inaccurate, and inconsistent with modern fire science.
"As the country's fire agency, we would have expected the LNFS report to be the most comprehensive relative to a fire of this size. Unfortunately, this is not the case," the report states.
The experts further noted that the LNFS report lacked specifics on responding personnel, firefighting actions, and investigative procedures, and contained misstatements and conclusions unsupported by forensic evidence or best-practice investigative standards.
Shift to Audio Evidence
Following Judge Willie's ruling, the defense pivoted to other evidence, requesting the court to review audio recordings allegedly capturing discussions about the arson.
Under cross-examination, prosecution witness Wilson identified voices in one recording as those of Defendant Dixon W. Seebo, also known as Gago, and Patrick Saah Allie, reiterating earlier testimony that the men discussed the incident.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Wilson testified that Seebo introduced himself in the audio recording, which he said was made in April 2025--approximately four months after the fire. He added that the recording contained multiple voices, including a person identified only as "Bundo," who reportedly works at the Capitol.
The defense also challenged how the prosecution handled aspects of Representative Seebo's testimony, citing inconsistencies. Several defense questions, however, were objected to by prosecution lawyers and sustained by the court.
The trial continues, with both sides expected to revisit disputes over forensic evidence and the reliability of investigative methods employed by law enforcement and the National Security Agency.
