MONROVIA - Lawyers for acquitted former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah Jr. have filed an emergency petition before the Supreme Court of Liberia on Thursday, seeking a writ of prohibition to halt what they described as an illegal post-verdict investigation into alleged jury tampering, accusing the executive branch of orchestrating a coordinated effort to overturn a jury verdict that a trial judge had already certified and recorded in open court.
The petition, filed hours after defense counsel Cllr. Arthur Johnson convened a press conference to detail the legal challenge, came after the presiding judge at Criminal Court 'C' at the Temple of Justice summoned all parties, including jurors, defense lawyers, prosecutors, and court officers, to appear for a closed-door inquiry into affidavits submitted by three former members of the 15-person jury panel alleging misconduct during the trial.
The acquittal itself came on May 8, when a nine-member jury majority returned a not-guilty verdict on all charges against Tweah, who had faced counts of economic sabotage, theft of property, money laundering, criminal conspiracy, and criminal facilitation arising from allegations involving the unauthorized handling and distribution of over $6.2 million and L$1 billion in public funds linked to the operations of the Financial Intelligence Agency. Moses Cooper, the former Financial Controller of the agency, was also acquitted. Two other defendants, Councilor Nyantituan and Jefferson Camo, were convicted on separate charges, and the defense has filed a motion for a new trial on their behalf.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
The trial was among the most significant criminal prosecutions in Liberia in recent years, lasting several months and drawing close attention from the public, civil society organizations and the international community. The mixed verdicts ignited sharp political controversy, with supporters of the acquitted defendants celebrating the outcome and critics immediately questioning whether the judicial process had functioned without interference.
What the Inquiry Alleges
The court inquiry was triggered by a petition filed by three jurors raising concerns about alleged inappropriate conduct and possible external interference before and after the panel returned its verdict. According to gathered information, the petition references alleged social gatherings involving jury members at critical points in the proceedings. Some jurors reportedly attended a year-end gathering before deliberations concluded, while a separate event described as an "after-case party" was said to have taken place after the trial ended.
The inquiry is also examining allegations that jurors had access to cell phones while sequestered, a potential violation of protocols designed to prevent outside communication and influence during trial. The presiding judge is expected to review CCTV footage from the period of the jury's sequestration, along with phone records, call logs and testimony from bailiffs who supervised the panel throughout the proceedings. Under Liberia's criminal justice framework, jurors are required to deliberate independently, basing decisions solely on evidence presented in court and remaining entirely free from external contact or influence. Any attempt to improperly influence a sitting juror constitutes a serious criminal offense. Consequences, depending on the severity of conduct established, can range from dismissal of compromised jurors and declarations of mistrial to contempt proceedings and criminal charges against those found responsible.
The Jurisdiction Argument
At the center of the defense's legal challenge is a procedural claim: once a jury is formally disbanded, no court retains jurisdiction to reconvene or investigate those jurors, particularly across separate court terms.
Cllr. Johnson told reporters Thursday that the trial, which concluded during the February court session, adhered to every procedural requirement. After the verdict was read aloud in open court, the clerk individually polled each juror to confirm whether it was theirs. Each confirmed it was. The judge then ordered the verdict recorded in the court minutes, officially declared the acquitted defendants free, and, upon joint request from both the defense and prosecution, disbanded the jury with formal thanks for their constitutional service.
"Once the judge disbanded the jury, the court has no jurisdiction again over the jurors," Cllr. Johnson said. "The jurors are citizens now. You cannot conduct an investigation where everyone is accused, but the accused cannot be present, cannot face their accusers, and cannot read the content of the complaint."
Cllr. Johnson cited a 1916 United States Supreme Court opinion, Death v. Burden, for the proposition that once jurors have dispersed and resumed private status, recall becomes constitutionally dangerous and legally improper. He also cited Liberian Supreme Court precedent establishing that a complaint of jury tampering must be raised before disbandment, while jurors remain under the court's jurisdiction, for any investigation to be lawful. In this case, he said, no party raised any such complaint at the time the jury was discharged.
The defense argues the investigation is further defective because the judge conducting it is sitting in the May term of court and has no authority to revisit proceedings from the February term without an extension from the Chief Justice, which has not been obtained. "The authority to call a jury about a proceeding in a February term of court is an issue of jurisdiction," Johnson said. "The judge personally has no jurisdiction to review a proceeding of the last term."
Closed Doors and Due Process
Johnson also raised a due-process objection grounded in Article 28 of the Liberian Constitution. He said the judge informed all parties that the investigation would be conducted entirely in camera, with no lawyers present, even though the judge had simultaneously identified defense counsel, prosecutors, defendants, court officers and jurors as all being subjects of the inquiry.
"You cannot conduct an investigation where everyone is accused but the accused cannot be present to know what the complaint is," Cllr. Johnson said. "That is a violation of due process on its face."
He said the defense had formally written to the judge demanding that he decline jurisdiction before the hearing proceeded. The judge did not act on the submission and continued with the closed proceedings. By Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court petition had been filed and the stay order issued, suspending the investigation pending the high court's ruling.
"The Government Wants Samuel Tweah to Go to Jail"
Asked directly who was driving the post-verdict pressure, Johnson did not hesitate.
"It is the government," he said. "The executive branch of government through the prosecution is the one pushing this thing. The government wants someone to get convicted."
He stopped short of placing personal responsibility on President Joseph Boakai, suggesting instead that the president's inner circle may be the primary force behind the pressure. "Sometimes the president may not be a bad president," Johnson said. "The circle of advisors has a serious tendency and ability to influence the president even when he does not intend to do certain things."
Cllr. Johnson said the defense had received intelligence that jurors were being pressured at their workplaces and that their jobs were under threat, describing the investigation as "a witch hunt" and "an attempt to influence people to lie on people and to run with it as a propaganda machinery." He also pointed to the timing of a separate criminal summons received by the defense the day before Thursday's hearing as evidence of a coordinated campaign. "You don't have to be a politician or a political scientist to understand that this is not a witch hunt," he said.
He warned that weaponizing legal proceedings for political ends carried consequences beyond the Tweah case. "Investors investigate the rule of law first," he said. "If they read reports and observe that the rule of law in that country is a problem, they never put their money there."
Senator Chea: "Acquittals Are Not Temporary Inconveniences"
Sinoe County Senator Augustine Chea published a lengthy statement on Facebook on Thursday condemning what he called a troubling pattern of political reaction to the Tweah acquittal, warning that the country was exhibiting signs reminiscent of the political repression of the 1980s.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Senator Chea said sections of the ruling Unity Party establishment responded to the not-guilty verdict not with respect for judicial independence but with open hostility. He said UP partisans publicly suggested the acquittal would not stand, questioned the integrity of jurors, and turned on the Minister of Justice for accepting the outcome, with the UP Youth Wing Chair calling publicly for the minister's removal and framing the verdict as a political embarrassment rather than an independent judicial determination.
"Such reactions reveal a deeply troubling mindset, one where prosecutors are expected not merely to present evidence and uphold the law, but to guarantee convictions in politically sensitive cases," Chea wrote. "That is not accountability. That is persecution disguised as anti-corruption."
According to Senator Chea, the backlash had elevated the case beyond Tweah personally into a set of profound national questions: whether opposition figures could receive fair trials in politically sensitive cases, whether jurors could decide cases without fear of intimidation or demonization, and whether anti-corruption prosecution was being weaponized as a partisan instrument. He warned of a permanent cycle of retaliatory justice if future governments refused to accept acquittals, predicting increased political polarization, declining trust in the judiciary and growing instability in the democratic order.
"The true test of democracy is not whether governments can prosecute opponents," Chea wrote. "It is whether governments can respect legal outcomes they do not like. If our country crosses the line where acquittals are treated as temporary inconveniences to be overturned by political pressure, then the nation risks replacing the rule of law with the rule of political power. And that would be a tragedy far greater than any single court case."
