Movement for Progressive Change (MPC) Political Leader Simeon Freeman has intensified pressure on the Boakai administration over its handling of one of the country's largest narcotics seizures, demanding to know why authorities continue to store the illicit drugs instead of destroying them and warning that prolonged government custody creates greater risks than benefits.
The crux of Freeman's criticism is a question he believes the government has yet to answer satisfactorily.
"Why are they even still keeping it up to now when they are supposed to destroy it? Let them destroy the drugs and stop keeping it," Freeman declared over the weekend.
His remarks come as investigations into the major drug seizure continue, raising difficult questions about the balance between preserving evidence for criminal prosecution and protecting the public from the risks associated with storing large quantities of narcotics.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
Freeman argues that the issue is no longer simply about evidence.
Instead, he says it is about whether Liberia possesses the institutional capacity to safely secure such a massive cache of narcotics over an extended period.
He questioned who is responsible for guarding the drugs, what oversight mechanisms are in place, and whether the public can be assured that every kilogram remains accounted for.
"We cannot continue to keep such dangerous substances in the possession of people who have not made any major arrest in connection with the drug cartel," he said.
For Freeman, every additional day the narcotics remain in storage increases the possibility of theft, diversion or corruption--risks that, he argues, outweigh the benefits of continued retention.
The Risks Freeman Sees
Freeman outlined several dangers associated with keeping the narcotics in government custody.
First, he warned that prolonged storage creates opportunities for criminal organizations to recover portions of the drugs through theft or infiltration.
"Prolonged storage increases the risk of theft, diversion, or tampering. Criminal networks often seek opportunities to regain access to seized narcotics, especially when investigations drag on without clear conclusions," he said.
Second, Freeman believes extended storage increases opportunities for corruption within institutions responsible for safeguarding the evidence.
"Without strict monitoring and transparent oversight, portions of the seized drugs could potentially be diverted back into illegal circulation, fueling addiction and criminal activity," he added.
Third, he argued that any diversion of the drugs would further worsen Liberia's growing drug abuse crisis, particularly among young people, while simultaneously eroding public confidence in law enforcement institutions.
Freeman maintains that once investigators have secured the evidence required for prosecution, the remaining narcotics should be publicly destroyed under judicial supervision.
However, Freeman's demand also raises an important legal question--Would destroying the drugs undermine the ongoing criminal investigation?
The answer depends largely on the stage of the investigation.
Under international criminal justice practice, authorities generally preserve enough of the seized narcotics for forensic analysis, laboratory testing and presentation as evidence in court. Investigators typically document the seizure through photographs, video recordings, laboratory reports, weight measurements, chain-of-custody records and representative samples.
Once prosecutors are satisfied that sufficient evidence has been preserved and courts authorize disposal, many countries destroy the bulk of the narcotics to eliminate security risks and prevent diversion.
However, if investigators have not completed forensic examinations, identified suspects, filed charges or obtained the necessary judicial approvals, prematurely destroying the drugs could complicate prosecutions. Defense lawyers could argue that critical physical evidence was destroyed before they had an opportunity to independently examine it, potentially weakening the government's case.
In that respect, Freeman's call for destruction would not necessarily jeopardize the investigation provided that all legal and evidentiary requirements have been fully satisfied. If those procedures remain incomplete, immediate destruction could create legal challenges for prosecutors.
The debate therefore shifts from whether the drugs should eventually be destroyed to whether investigators have already completed every evidentiary requirement necessary for successful prosecution.
Freeman says much of the public uncertainty could be resolved if authorities communicated more openly about the status of the investigation.
He argues that the government should explain whether forensic testing has been completed, whether all evidence has been documented, who currently has custody of the narcotics, what independent auditing mechanisms exist, and when the drugs are expected to be destroyed.
Providing such information, he believes, would strengthen public confidence while reducing speculation surrounding the handling of the case.
Beyond the storage issue, Freeman called on the government to accelerate the broader investigation and identify everyone connected to the alleged trafficking network.
He also urged the international community to closely monitor developments and consider sanctions--including asset freezes and other penalties--against President Joseph Boakai, Vice President Jeremiah Koung and other senior officials if the investigation is not concluded within 14 days.
The government has not publicly responded to those specific proposals.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The country has increasingly found itself under international scrutiny over narcotics trafficking, with several major cocaine seizures in recent years reinforcing concerns that the country is vulnerable to exploitation by transnational criminal organizations operating between Latin America, West Africa and European markets.
While successive governments have pledged tougher enforcement, critics have frequently questioned whether investigations have consistently resulted in the dismantling of trafficking networks and successful prosecutions of those responsible.
Freeman believes the latest case represents a critical test of Liberia's commitment to combating organized crime.
"Our country's image and integrity are on the line," he said.
The issue, for Freeman, ultimately comes down to accountability. If investigators have gathered all necessary evidence, he argues, the government should immediately destroy the seized narcotics under transparent judicial supervision. If legal requirements have not yet been completed, he says authorities owe Liberians a full explanation of why the drugs remain in storage and when the public can expect their destruction.
As the investigation progresses, the debate has evolved beyond the seizure itself into a broader discussion about transparency, institutional credibility and how Liberia balances the demands of criminal justice with the imperative of protecting the public from the dangers posed by large stockpiles of illicit narcotics.
