The high-profile US$6.2 million corruption trial involving former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah Jr. and four other ex-officials reached a tense new phase on Wednesday, as the defense's cross-examination of Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) Program Manager Baba Mohammed Boika exposed sharp disputes over investigative standards and evidence.
For much of the trial, proceedings were marked by frequent prosecution objections that repeatedly interrupted defense counsel Cllr. Arthur Tamba Johnson. Courtroom observers noted that Judge Ousman Feika had sustained at least 30 objections during Boika's cross-examination, restricting Johnson's ability to challenge the witness on credibility, prior statements, and potential bias under the Liberia Rules of Evidence. 960d
That pattern broke during this week's session when Judge Feika overruled more than six prosecution objections that sought to block Johnson's line of questioning. With the objections set aside, Johnson pressed Boika on inconsistencies between his current testimony and earlier statements made to LACC investigators. 960d
Defense Shifts Focus to LACC's Investigative Process
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
After spending prior sessions attacking the reliability of the prosecution's witness, the defense on Wednesday turned its attention to the investigative process itself. Counsel for the accused challenged the thoroughness and impartiality of the LACC probe that led to charges against several former government officials, including former National Security Advisor Jefferson Karmoh.
In a pointed exchange, defense lawyers asked Boika to produce tangible evidence directly linking Karmoh to alleged proceeds. Johnson enumerated specific forms of proof: bank accounts held in Karmoh's name or for his benefit, documented contributions to susu clubs, property titles for real estate acquisitions, and records of vehicle purchases. The questioning was designed to test whether the LACC's case file contains direct financial traces or relies instead on inference and testimony. 960d
"Follow the Money" vs. "Not Interested in Operational Details"
Responding to questions on investigative standards, Boika stated:
"As investigators, there is no law that requires us to see bank accounts, cars, susu clubs, or houses built before charging individuals with corruption."
Cllr. Johnson immediately rebutted:
"Yes, Mr. Witness, as an investigator, the law holds you to a very high standard before accusing or indicting individuals. We are dealing with former government officials whose lives, dignity, and reputations are at stake. Your duty is to establish facts beyond doubt, because in criminal law, any doubt operates in favor of the accused." 960d
The defense then highlighted what it called a contradiction in Boika's testimony. Counsel noted that Boika had previously told the court the LACC was not "interested in the operational details of the money." Yet under questioning Wednesday, the witness said investigators have a responsibility to "follow the money".
Johnson argued the two positions are incompatible: one suggests asset tracing and financial flows are immaterial to charging decisions, while the other makes tracing money a core investigative duty. He used the discrepancy to question the thoroughness of the probe and the evidentiary basis for the indictment, emphasizing that shifting standards undermine the presumption of innocence.
Broader Context of the Case
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The trial centers on allegations that US6.2 million was mishandled between September 8 and 22, 2023, purportedly to support "joint security operations" ahead of the elections. Prosecutors allege the funds -- approximately L1.055 billion (US5.4-5.5 million) plus US$500,000 -- were neither appropriated by the Legislature nor deposited into an official National Security Council account.
Boika previously conceded under cross-examination that investigators could not establish whether the money was personally misappropriated or determine who ultimately received it. "We were investigating an act of corruption," Boika told the court. "The defendants could not inform investigators which national security agencies received what allocations. On that basis, we moved forward with the indictment."
The defense has seized on that admission to argue the state cannot sustain a theft charge without tracing the flow of funds or proving personal benefit.
