The Supreme Court of Liberia has denied a petition for re-argument filed by former Finance Minister Tweah D. Tweah and other senior government officials seeking immunity from prosecution in an alleged economic crimes case, ruling that its earlier judgment remains unchanged despite acknowledging a citation error in its prior opinion.
The decision, handed down on February 12, 2026, allows the trial court to proceed with criminal proceedings against former Finance and Development Planning Minister Samuel D. Tweah and four other former officials.
The case stems from allegations of economic sabotage, theft of property, money laundering, criminal facilitation, and criminal conspiracy.
The petitioners had earlier sought a writ of prohibition to halt proceedings before Criminal Assizes ‘C’ in Montserrado County, presided over by Judge Roosevelt Willie.
On December 18, 2025, the Supreme Court denied that petition and ordered the lower court to resume jurisdiction.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the former officials filed a 33-count petition for re-argument, contending that the Court had relied on the wrong statutory provision in determining that they were not entitled to immunity as members of the National Security Council (NSC).
Citation Error Acknowledged, But Ruling Stands
In its judgment on the re-argument petition, the Court acknowledged what it described as an “inadvertence” in citing Section 2(g) instead of Section 3(b) of the 2011 National Security Reform and Intelligence Act (NSRIA), which outlines the composition of the National Security Council.
However, the Court held that the error did not affect its substantive conclusion.
The judgment stated: “This Court acknowledges the inadvertence in its Opinion of December 18, 2025, in which it cited Section 2(g) instead of Section 3(b) of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act which provides for the composition of the National Security Council created under the Office of the President, and in which the Minister of Finance is a member; and
That, however, this inadvertence does not affect the conclusion of the Court’s Opinion of December 18, 2025, to the effect that the petitioners do not enjoy the immunity granted to the President under Article 61 of the Liberia Constitution.”
The Court consequently denied the petition for re-argument and ordered its Clerk to issue a mandate directing the trial court to resume proceedings.
Immunity Not Transferable
Delivering the opinion of the Court, Associate Justice Boakai N. Kanneh emphasized that membership in the National Security Council does not confer presidential immunity.
The Court observed:
“That the composition of the NSC as enshrined in Section 3 (b) does not expressly grant any member immunity from suits;
That the immunity enjoyed by the President springs from the Constitution (Article 61) and is not transferable to third parties;
That the National Security Council (NSC) being resident in the Office of the President does not presuppose that any member thereof enjoys the immunity of the President.”
The justices further held that even if the correct statutory section had been cited initially, the outcome would not have changed:
“Assuming Section 2(g) is substituted for Section 3(b) which provides for the composition of the NSC, we do not see how same will affect the outcome of the December 18, 2025 Opinion of this Court as Section 3(b) does not grant any express immunity for members of the National Security Council. Hence, the petitioners have not stated any law or fact overlooked by the Court for the purpose of changing the outcome of this case.”
The Court described the citation error as “harmless without changing the substance of the opinion.”
Limits of Re-Argument
The Supreme Court also used the occasion to clarify the limited scope of petitions for re-argument under its rules.
Quoting its established jurisprudence, the Court stated:
“It is the law that a petition for re-argument is not intended to challenge the Opinion and Judgment of the Supreme Court on points of law and facts raised and already decided by the Court simply because the petitioners are of the opinion that the Court is wrong in its conclusion of the law and facts.”
It further warned against allowing litigants to dictate legal interpretation:
“This Court would be setting a very ugly precedent detrimental to its dignity and repugnant to good society if it would permit parties to a suit before it to determine the relevancy of law controlling the case. As the determination and interpretation of the law is for the Court, to permit a party to the case to determine the relevancy of the law would amount to a surrender of this most important office of the Court to the whims and notions of such party.”
The Court reiterated that re-argument is discretionary:
“Re-argument is permissive and not mandatory; it may or may not be allowed; it is conditional, not absolute; it is ordered only if good cause therefor is shown.”
Recusals Noted
Two justices-Jamesetta Howard Wolokolie and Ceaineh D. Clinton Johnson- recused themselves from the hearing and determination of the case.
The judgment was signed by Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, Sr., and Associate Justices Yussif D. Kaba and Boakai N. Kanneh.
Trial to Proceed
With the denial of the re-argument petition, the case now returns to the lower court for continuation of criminal proceedings.
The ruling is likely to have significant implications for how claims of functional or derivative immunity are treated in Liberia, particularly in cases involving national security institutions and former high-ranking officials.
