-National Security Ruling Errors Cited for Re-Argument
MONROVIA – In a dramatic turn of events, Liberia’s Supreme Court has agreed to revisit a contentious ruling that had denied national security protection to former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah and other high-ranking officials. The court’s decision to reconsider its interpretation of the National Security Reform and Intelligence Act (NSRI) of 2011 raises questions about the balance between accountability and national security, and could have far-reaching implications for Liberia’s governance and rule of law. The Analyst reports.
The Supreme Court of Liberia has agreed to revisit its December 18, 2025, ruling in the case of former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah and other officials, citing errors in its interpretation of national security laws.
The court will rehear arguments on whether the petitioners qualify as members or agents of the National Security Council (NSC) under the 2011 National Security Reform and Intelligence Act (NSRI).
The original ruling, signed by Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay and two other justices, stated that the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning is not a member of the NSC, as it is not explicitly listed in the NSRI.
However, petitioners’ lawyers argue this contradicts Section 3(b) of the NSRI, which includes the Minister of Finance as a member of the NSC.
The Supreme Court’s decision to reconsider its ruling follows petitioners’ arguments that the original decision overlooked key statutory provisions and constitutional doctrines central to Liberia’s national security governance.
The petitioners, including former National Security Advisor Jefferson Karmo and former Acting Minister of Justice Cllr. Nyenati Tuan, claim they were exercising national security functions and are entitled to protection under the NSRI.
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia has agreed to hear re-argument after the Court’s ruling on last Thursday, December 18, in the case involving former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah, former National Security Advisor Jefferson Karmo, former Acting Minister of Justice Cllr. Nyenati Tuan, and other former officials of Government who served in the Weah Administration.
The accused persons were indicted for authorizing and expending public resources under the auspices of the National Security Council (NSC), and took their case to the Supreme Court, seeking to dismiss the indictment.
However, the Supreme Court, in a ruling signed by three justices, Chief Justice, Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, Associate Justice Yussif D. Kaba and Associate Justice Boakai N. Kanneh, after two other Associate justices, Jamesetta H. Wolokollie and Ceaineh D. Clinton-Johnson had recused themselves from the case, opined that former Finance Minister, and by extension all finance ministers of Liberia, are not entitled to national security protection contained in the National Security Reform and Intelligence Act (NSRI) of 2011 because, according to the ruling, the NSRI does not specifically list the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning as a member of the NSC.
Lawyers for the Petitioners immediately observed that this ruling is contrary to Section 3(b) of the NSRI of 2011, which names all members of the NSC as follows: President of Liberia (Chairman), Vice President (Co-Chair), Minister of National Defense, Minister of Justice, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Finance, Minister of Internal Affairs.
The Act also names the Director-General, National Security Agency, National Security Advisor (Secretary), and the Director of the Liberia National Police as members of the National Security Council (NSC).
Beyond the omission of the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning from the list of NSC members, the petitioners’ lawyer argue further that the Supreme Court’s denial of the Financial Intelligence Agency of national security protection under the NSRI Act contravenes section 2(b) of the NSTI Act, which defines the National Security Architecture of the Liberia.
The Petition says that such denial is itself a threat to national security, since the FIA oversees critical spaces involving financial intelligence, money laundering and terrorist financing, quoting Section 2(b) of the NSRI reads thus:
“This act shall apply to all Law enforcement agencies: the Liberian National Police including the National Police Training Academy; the Bureau of Corrections and Rehabilitation; The Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization; the Bureau of Customs and Excises; The National Fire Service; the Motor Vehicle Bureau; the National Security Agency and the Special Security Services, (now replaced with the Executive Protection Services in this Act.
An Act of Legislature shall regulate the functions and divisions of each of these agencies and such other agencies [and such other agencies or offices as may be established for national security and public safety].
“Consistent with section 2(b) above of the 2011 Act,” according to the petition, the Financial Intelligence Agency is a member of the national security infrastructure, since it was established first in 2012 as Financial Intelligence Unit and reorganized under legislation in 2021 as Financial Intelligence Agency, both dates occurring after the passage of the NSRI of 2011.
The Petition noted that Supreme Court in its ruling duly and rightly recognized what is termed in section 3(g) of the NSRI as a “Support Group,” which may act as “agents” of the National Security Council.
Section 3(g) of the NSRI reads thus: “Supporting Group: The president in his or her capacity as Chair of the NSC shall have as supporting group for the implementation of the policy directives of the NSC, the following members: The Minister of Justice, the minister of National Defense, the Director of the National Security Agency, the Director of the National Police.
Others are the Director of the Executive Protective Agency, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of Liberia, the Commissioner Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, the National Security Advisor to the President, and the G-2 Commander, Military Intelligence.
The petitioners in their re-argument argued and maintain that the Financial Intelligence Agency is part of the supporting group of the NSC, since it was established as an institution managing and overseeing financial intelligence and illicit financial flows, including money laundering and terrorist financing.
The petitioners contended that for the Court to deny the FIA of national security protection as defined under the NSRI of 2011 and under the FIA act of 2021 is in and of itself a serious threat to national security through the avenues of financial intelligence, money laundering and terrorist financing.
The Petitioners also argued that the Acting Minister of Justice acts on behalf of the Minister and not as an individual.
They noted that the Acting Minister of Justice is clothed with the authority under the Executive Law of Liberia to perform the functions of the Minister in the Minister’s absence, arguing that under Chapter 22.2 of the Executive Law of Liberia, which spells out all the functions of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Republic, the Acting Minister of Justice, in the absence of the Minister proper, shall have the authority to act as Minister of Justice.
Petitioners aver that when the responsibility of the Acting Minister of Justice is delegated to any of the deputies of the Minister, he or she shall carry out all the functions of the Minister until he or she returns to such capacity.
The Petitioners contend that the practice of the Government allows Acting ministers or officials to carry out the official duties of the proper minister.
Servicing on the NSC in the absence of the Minister was at the full discretion of the President, and questioning that decision was judicial overreach and a violation of the principle of checks and balances of power against the Executive branch of government.
Petitioners further argue that there are no restrictions in the NSRI Act of 2011 about the Acting Minister of Justice not serving on the NSC in the absence of the Minister of Justice.
The petitioners contend that consistent with Supreme Court rules on re-argument, the issues identified above from the opinion of the Supreme Court are grave as to warrant a re-argument or reversal of the Court’s opinion.
The Petitioners argues that if Supreme Court grants the deserved protections to Petitioners who were exercising national security functions, issue one of the supreme court ruling would be answered in the affirmative.
Issue one of the ruling reads thus: “Do the petitioners qualify as members or agents of the National Security Council under the 2011 National Security Reform and Intelligence Act (NSRI), which would allow them to act on its behalf and claim its protection?”
Petitioners contend the arguments prosecuted in the filing of their re-argument make the answer to the above question broached by the Supreme Court a resounding ‘yes.’
Petitioners aver that they are members of the NSC under sections 2(b), 3(b) and 3(g) of the NSRI of 2011 and that as members if accorded the due and deserved protections, a lower court of record cannot be the venue to publicly try sensitive national security matters.
They reargue that NSC members are prohibited by the NSRI from disclosing evidence or presenting evidence, which is the substance or requirement of a lower court trial by judge or jury.
On the arguments on constitutional Immunity and Separation of Powers, thePetitioners emphasized that Article 61 of the Liberian Constitution, when read in harmony with Articles 50, protects official executive acts, including those carried out by senior presidential advisors acting under lawful authority.
Liberian Supreme Court precedent recognizes that immunity is functional, meaning it attaches to the nature of the act, not merely the title of the actor.
By permitting criminal proceedings to advance against former officials for actions allegedly taken in execution of national security policy, the ruling—according to the Petition—risks criminalizing policy decisions and undermining the constitutional separation of powers.
On the argument on Ex Parte subpoenas for classified material, the Petition also raises serious concerns regarding the Court’s approval of ex parte subpoenas for documents implicating national security and classified executive deliberations.
Petitioners argue that such actions bypass due process safeguards and intrude into the President’s exclusive constitutional domain, contrary to both Liberian jurisprudence and widely accepted democratic norms governing national security oversight
In conclusion, the Petitioners have prayed the Supreme Court of Liberia for re-argument of its December 18, 2025 ruling denying a writ of prohibition and the court has obliged and is expected to re-hear the argument.
According to the Petitioners, the Petition for Re-Argument does not challenge the authority or integrity of the Supreme Court, but respectfully asserts that the Court inadvertently overlooked controlling statutory provisions and constitutional doctrines central to framework of Liberia’s national security governance.