During continued direct examination, former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah mounted a forceful challenge to the prosecution's US$6.2 million economic sabotage case, arguing that the state has failed to produce evidence that meets the legal threshold for conviction.
The prosecution alleges that Tweah and four other former officials illegally transferred L$1.055 billion and US$500,000 through the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA) for personal use. But Tweah told the court the case rests on "assertions rather than evidence."
"A Bank Statement... A Witness... A Video... This Is Not the Trial We Have Seen" Tweah said.
Tweah pointed to what he called glaring gaps in the prosecution's evidentiary chain. The state, he said, has not shown:
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
Lack of authorization from the National Security Council for the transfers,
Evidence of personal benefit to any defendant,
Communications indicating a conspiracy to divert funds.
"Where are the records of new houses, luxury cars, expensive purchases, or unexplained bank deposits?" Tweah asked. In criminal trials involving public officials, he noted, prosecutors typically show sudden asset accumulation or lifestyle upgrades as circumstantial proof of illicit enrichment.
"If we truly 'converted' public money for ourselves, there should be a paper trail or visible lifestyle change," Tweah testified. "The state has skipped that step -- alleging improper transfers without demonstrating that any official personally profited."
Disputing the Money Laundering Charge: "Government Funds Are Not 'Dirty' Money"
Tweah reserved sharp criticism for the money laundering count. Invoking the French term "blanchiment d'argent" -- literally "whitening" or cleaning illicit funds -- he argued the charge misapplies the law.
"Money laundering requires 'dirty' money: proceeds from an underlying crime that you then disguise to make it look legitimate," Tweah explained. "Funds sitting in a government account are public funds, not yet proceeds of crime. Moving them from one government account to another doesn't place illicit cash into the legitimate economy or conceal its origin."
Even if the transfers were unauthorized, he contended, they fail to meet the classic elements of laundering: placement, layering, and integration of criminal proceeds. "This may be an administrative or misappropriation issue," Tweah said, "but calling it money laundering stretches the definition beyond recognition."
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Attacking Reliance on Third-Party Letters Over Documents
Tweah also challenged the prosecution's reliance on a July 2023 letter from Jefferson Karmoh as proof that FIA was not properly part of National Joint Security (NJS) operations.
"What if that statement is wrong but the FIA is still a member of the NJS?" he asked the court. "What if we show you a 2019 or 2022 letter from Karmoh describing FIA in NJS actions?"
His point: the state is substituting third-party statements for hard documentary proof. Instead of bank records, transfer authorizations, or signed directives, prosecutors are leaning on what someone else wrote in a letter.
Legal practitioners following the trial say Tweah's testimony is a textbook reasonable-doubt strategy. "A witness statement can be mistaken, taken out of context, or contradicted by other documents," one lawyer noted. "Without corroborating records, the letter alone doesn't prove the elements of the crime."
A legal practitioner observing the testimony said, Tweah's testimony seeks to reframe the case from criminal conspiracy to disputed administrative procedure. By highlighting the absence of personal enrichment evidence and contesting the legal theory behind the laundering charge, the defense is betting that the prosecution cannot bridge the gap between "improper transfer" and "economic sabotage."
The trial continues.
