The Liberian Senate has summoned Justice Minister Cllr. Oswald Tweh to appear before its Committee on Judiciary to explain what lawmakers describe as "procedural irregularities" surrounding a recently filed -- and swiftly withdrawn -- criminal subpoena against the Senate.
The move follows a controversial legal action by the Ministry of Justice seeking financial records from the Senate in connection with discrepancies flagged in a General Auditing Commission (GAC) report.
The Subpoena and Its Withdrawal
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
The Ministry of Justice filed a petition before Criminal Court "A" requesting access to Senate financial documents as part of an investigation into alleged "unexplained gaps" identified in an audit covering the period ending March 31, 2024.
The audit reportedly pointed to approximately US$26 million in questioned or unaccounted expenditures -- findings that, if substantiated, could suggest misuse of public funds.
The subpoena, however, was withdrawn just hours after it was filed, and the court subsequently quashed the order. The abrupt reversal has since raised questions about procedural judgment, legal strategy, and the broader political implications of pursuing criminal action against a coequal branch of government.
Senators Push Back
The decision to summon Minister Tweh followed a formal communication to plenary by Senators Amara Konneh (Gbarpolu), Abraham Darius Dillon (Montserrado), Gbenzohngar Findley (Grand Bassa), and Edwin Snowe (Bomi) during Thursday's sitting.
In their letter, the Senators argued that the Ministry of Justice misidentified the institution responsible for the financial discrepancies.
They cited the GAC's "System Review of the Financial Management System and Accounting Processes of the Liberian Senate," which reportedly states that:
"Financial operations [were] processed by MFDP rather than the Senate Finance Department."
According to the lawmakers, the finding demonstrates that the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (MFDP) -- not the Senate -- controls cash releases, IFMIS transactions, expenditure execution, fiscal outturn reporting, and other financial processes under the Public Financial Management Act.
They contend that several of the discrepancies referenced in the withdrawn petition -- including differences between MFDP outturn reports and IFMIS ledger entries -- fall squarely within MFDP's operational jurisdiction.
'Threatening the Separation of Powers'
In a strongly worded statement, the Senators warned that the Ministry's action risked undermining constitutional boundaries:
"The Ministry of Justice initiated criminal court proceedings against a coequal branch of government without prior engagement, flagrantly bypassing established interbranch procedures. This approach: (a) falsely labeled MFDP-controlled financial variances as Senate actions, (b) demanded documents from an institution that does not oversee the relevant systems, and (c) dangerously threatened the constitutional separation of powers."
They further argued that the withdrawal of the subpoena amounts to a tacit acknowledgment of procedural missteps.
The lawmakers are demanding that Minister Tweh explain why the subpoena targeted the Senate instead of MFDP; the legal basis for directing criminal process at a coequal branch without prior institutional engagement; the rationale behind the sudden withdrawal; and how the Ministry intends to proceed with audit findings originating from MFDP-controlled systems.
Senate Affirms Commitment to Accountability
Despite the institutional friction, the Senators emphasized that the Senate remains committed to transparency and implementation of the Auditor General's recommendations.
They noted that the audit in question was the Senate's first systems audit and that the Senate Finance Office, with the assistance of a financial consultant, is working with the GAC to implement corrective measures.
"Accountability must be pursued within the appropriate legal and institutional framework, with full respect for the constitutional order," the Senators stated.
They also suggested that the Ministry's approach risked tarnishing the Senate's institutional reputation.
Separation of Powers vs. Anti-Corruption Enforcement
The standoff highlights a fundamental tension within Liberia's constitutional democracy: how to aggressively pursue corruption while preserving institutional independence.
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary operate as coequal branches. Criminal prosecution of members of the Legislature -- or actions compelling institutional records -- must be handled with heightened sensitivity to avoid perceptions of executive overreach.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
However, a lawyer, citing anonymity, said constitutional independence does not shield any branch from accountability. If audit findings suggest potential financial mismanagement, the Executive branch, through the Ministry of Justice, has both the authority and obligation to investigate.
According to him, the key legal and constitutional questions raised by this saga are jurisdictional responsibility: If financial processing is controlled by MFDP, should investigative focus have begun there? Procedural Engagement: Is prior interbranch consultation required before initiating criminal court proceedings against a legislative institution? Institutional Optics: Does withdrawing a subpoena strengthen claims of procedural error, or reflect caution to avoid constitutional conflict?
The case, he noted, underscores the delicate balance between ensuring transparency in public finance management and respecting the structural guardrails designed to prevent institutional encroachment.
How Minister Tweh responds before the Judiciary Committee may determine whether this episode becomes a constitutional confrontation -- or an opportunity to clarify boundaries in Liberia's ongoing fight against corruption.
