MONROVIA – Liberia’s fragile transitional justice process has been thrust into renewed controversy following a sharp rebuttal from National Security Advisor Samuel K. Woods, II, who forcefully rejected allegations that he is obstructing the work of the Office for the Establishment of a War and Economic Crimes Court. The claims, attributed to OWECC-L Executive Director Jallah Barbu, have triggered a broader institutional debate over roles, legal mandates, and the pace of accountability efforts. At stake is not merely a bureaucratic disagreement, but public confidence in a long-awaited justice mechanism central to national reconciliation. As tensions rise, Woods’ response signals an effort to reassert procedural order while defending credibility. THE ANALYST reports.
The Office of the National Security Advisor has issued a firm and detailed rebuttal to allegations circulating in sections of the media suggesting that it is undermining and delaying the work of the Office for the Establishment of the War and Economic Crimes Court in Liberia (OWECC-L), setting the stage for a high-stakes institutional confrontation with far-reaching implications for Liberia’s transitional justice agenda.
In an official statement dated April 26, 2026, the Office categorically rejected claims attributed to OWECC-L Executive Director, Cllr. Jallah A. Barbu, describing them as “false, unfounded, and ill-fated.” The statement underscores what it portrays as a deliberate attempt to distort both the role and record of National Security Advisor, Attorney Samuel K. Woods, II, while simultaneously risking public misunderstanding of the legal and procedural architecture governing the establishment of the War and Economic Crimes Court.
At the center of the dispute lies a fundamental question: who holds responsibility for advancing the operationalization of the court, and through what legal channels must that process be pursued? The National Security Advisor’s Office answers this question with clarity, invoking Executive Order #131 as the governing framework that defines institutional boundaries and procedural requirements.
According to the Office, Executive Order #131 explicitly places the reporting authority of the OWECC-L Executive Director under the Minister of Justice and Attorney General—not the National Security Advisor. This distinction, officials argue, is not merely administrative but foundational to ensuring that the court’s establishment proceeds within constitutionally recognized legal channels.
“Accordingly, all proposals must follow established legal procedures within the Justice Ministry as outlined by the Attorney General,” the statement emphasizes, signaling that any perceived delays must be understood within the context of legal compliance rather than political obstruction.
This position aligns closely with broader government messaging that stresses process integrity over expediency, particularly in a matter as consequential as prosecuting war and economic crimes arising from Liberia’s brutal civil conflicts.
The Office went further to assert that the Attorney General and Minister of Justice has already responded adequately to the allegations raised by Cllr. Barbu, suggesting that any additional claims lacking specific evidence risk undermining not only institutional credibility but also public trust in the justice process itself.
“If there is specific evidence of the said allegations,” the statement notes pointedly, “Cllr. Barbu will serve our country well by reporting such acts to the President for appropriate action.” This challenge introduces a higher evidentiary threshold into the public discourse, effectively reframing the debate from accusation to accountability.
Beyond legal clarifications, the statement reflects a deeper concern within the National Security Advisor’s Office about what it describes as attempts to politicize or misrepresent Liberia’s transitional justice process. Such actions, the Office warns, distract from the collective responsibility required to achieve reconciliation and accountability, while also exposing the process to potential manipulation.
The language employed is both defensive and assertive, signaling that the Office views the allegations not as routine criticism but as part of a broader narrative that could distort national priorities. It cautions stakeholders against rhetoric that may inflame divisions or erode confidence in a process that remains central to Liberia’s post-conflict recovery.
In defending the personal and professional integrity of Attorney Samuel K. Woods, II, the statement invokes his historical record, describing him as a long-standing advocate for human rights and justice during periods when such positions carried significant personal risk.
The Office recalls that Woods “paid his dues when newly baptized advocates were taking cover and, in some cases, collaborating with warlords,” positioning him as a figure whose commitment to accountability predates current institutional arrangements.
This historical framing is not incidental. It serves to counter the suggestion that Woods would undermine a process to which he has, according to the statement, dedicated much of his professional life. The Office characterizes the allegations as not only inaccurate but fundamentally implausible, given this record.
Thus, it describes the claims as “laughable,” arguing that they fail to withstand scrutiny when measured against Woods’ longstanding engagement with justice and human rights advocacy in Liberia.
The statement also references recent remarks by the National Security Advisor regarding what he described as a “deliberate misinformation campaign” allegedly orchestrated by certain individuals, including actors from abroad. According to the Office, these individuals are believed to be attempting to influence or “hijack” Liberia’s transitional justice process for personal or political gain.
While the statement stops short of directly linking Cllr. Barbu’s allegations to this purported campaign, it raises the possibility that such claims could inadvertently align with broader efforts to distort the process. In a cautionary tone, the Office urges Barbu to “take care not to become an unwitting pawn and a gullible vessel” in what it describes as a coordinated misinformation effort.
This assertion introduces a geopolitical and strategic dimension to what might otherwise appear as a domestic institutional disagreement, suggesting that the stakes extend beyond internal administrative disputes.
Equally significant is the Office’s effort to clarify the functional scope of the National Security Advisor. It emphasizes that the role is strictly advisory and analytical, encompassing a wide range of issues including human security, food security, energy, and agriculture, rather than operational law enforcement.
This clarification appears aimed at correcting what the Office perceives as a fundamental misunderstanding of its mandate. It stresses that the National Security Advisor does not engage in arrests, investigations, or enforcement actions—functions that remain the responsibility of legally mandated institutions.
“Security is being redefined,” the statement explains, highlighting a broader conceptual shift toward identifying risks, assessing threats, and providing policy guidance rather than executing operational measures. This reframing aligns with contemporary approaches to national security that emphasize integrated, cross-sectoral analysis.
In this context, the Office underscores its willingness to collaborate with all relevant institutions, including those involved in the transitional justice process, to ensure that policies promote human rights and dignity. However, it draws a clear line against any suggestion that it exercises operational control over the establishment of the War and Economic Crimes Court.
The statement also addresses allegations that the Office may be engaged in “witch hunting” or directing arrests, categorically denying such claims and describing them as malicious fabrications. It asserts that, as former victims of systemic abuses, officials within the Office would not perpetuate the very practices they seek to dismantle.
This moral framing reinforces the Office’s broader narrative of principled engagement and institutional restraint, positioning it as both a guardian of process and a stakeholder in Liberia’s justice and reconciliation journey.
In its concluding section, the Office reaffirms its full support for President Joseph Nyuma Boakai Sr.’s directive on transitional justice and the establishment of the War and Economic Crimes Court. It calls on all stakeholders to prioritize collaboration over confrontation, urging a collective focus on achieving justice and lasting peace.
Notably, the statement proposes an independent performance evaluation and audit of the OWECC-L, alongside an investigation into the allegations that have triggered the current dispute. This recommendation signals a willingness to subject the process to external scrutiny, potentially providing a pathway to resolve competing claims and restore confidence.
Such a move, if pursued, could introduce an additional layer of accountability into an already complex process, while also serving as a test of institutional transparency and political will.
The unfolding dispute highlights a broader tension that has long characterized transitional justice efforts in Liberia: the balance between urgency and procedural rigor. While there is widespread consensus on the need for accountability for past atrocities, disagreements persist over how quickly and through what mechanisms that accountability should be delivered.
In this case, the National Security Advisor’s Office has positioned itself firmly on the side of procedural integrity, insisting that adherence to established legal frameworks is essential to ensuring that the eventual court is both credible and effective.
Whether this stance will ease tensions or deepen divisions remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the debate has moved beyond personalities to touch on fundamental questions of governance, institutional roles, and the architecture of justice in post-conflict Liberia.
For a nation still navigating the legacy of its past, the stakes could not be higher.