Tweah’s Delight in ‘Powerful Opening Argument’ -Says Judge Willie Has Significant Ruling to Make

MONROVIA – The alleged corruption case against former Minister Samuel D. Tweah, Jr, and colleagues of the erstwhile Coalition for Democratic Change government began in earnest yesterday with the legal counsel of the defendants taking the stage to say why the indictment must be quashed and the accused purged of the allegations. It seems the former Finance Minister is highly elated by the presentation made by his counsel and that his vindication possibly certain. As The Analyst reports, Tweah explained his experience of the proceedings yesterday as shared with the media.

Facing multiple corruption charges, including economic sabotage, a number of top officials of the former Coalition for Democratic Change administration are being prosecuted by its successor, the Unity Party government.

Following a number if initial legal hiccups, the case formally began yesterday, February 25, 2025, lawyers of the accused taking the defence stand to react to the indictment. 

At the end of the day’s legal battle, the most prominent of the accused, former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah, spoke of his feelings of the first day of litigation, stating he was “leaving court after hearing powerful opening and concluding arguments delivered by our defense team on why Judge Roosevelt Willie should dismiss this case on national security grounds since courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction on cases impinging on national security”.

Tweah apparently excitedly indicated that his lawyer, Cllr Wilfred Sayeh, in closing the defence of the day, argued that not only are “members of the National security council prohibited from revealing information at the pain of jail, but that they would like to clear their names and reputation by revealing sensitive national security information BUT ARE PROHIBITED BY LAW  FROM DOING SO”.

According to the former Finance Minister, the Prosecution agreed that defendants do not have to testify in the court for national security reasons but that the prosecution would still be able to prove them guilty.

“Without their testimony. This is bogus reasoning,” Tweah wrote, asking rhetorically: “How will you prove guilt in such situation? Showing that money was used is NOT EVIDENCE. The LACC report shows monies were used for national security purposes but they do not know on what purposes. Of course, the LACC cannot know these purposes because of national security. So why did the Government indict the members of the National Security Council?”

He said the other major issue that is emerging is that even if the LACC or Government had access to the national security information at bar in the current case, “should the court entertain this information and in so doing might the court be sanctioning violations of national security statutes?”

“The prosecution argued that Government entity such courts can be the recipients of such sensitive information,” he asserted, “But Judge Willie asked a pertinent question bordering on the prosecution’s agreement that national security actors are not forced to disclose during trial. The judge was wondering how the lack of testimony by defendants would play out during the trial”.

The former Finance Minister continued: “The question from the judge appears to  show he is in doubt whether the court itself can be the venue for trying national security matters as in the present case. It is not just that members of security council cannot disclose but that the information they cannot disclose should not make its way to the public whether by trial or any other means.”

he noted that is the essential question on which Judge Willie would have to rule on Friday of the week.

“If he allows the case he would be enabling the parading of national security evidence in public, against national security statutes,” he reasoned. “Defendants would not be able to testify in such a trial so what kind of trial would that be?

“A trial where only prosecution provides information, whether TRUE OR FALSE , but in which defendants cannot say anything because of national security restrictions at the risk of jail.”

According to him, the prosecution also weakly argued that the filing of the motion was mis-timed, something the defence countered that under civil and criminal procedures, filing of motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be done at any time, citing the relevant code under the law.

Tweah concluded: “Judge Willie has a significant ruling to make on Friday February 28, 2025.”