By G. Watson Richards
State prosecutors in the ongoing economic sabotage trial involving over L$1 billion and more than US$500,000 have informed Criminal Court ‘C’ Judge Ousman F. Feika of their intention to present rebuttal witnesses.
The move is aimed at challenging key aspects of testimony provided by former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah.
The trial, now in its 63rd day at Criminal Court ‘C’ at the Temple of Justice in Monrovia, stems from a case filed by the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC). Several former senior government officials are accused of economic sabotage, money laundering, theft, and criminal conspiracy.
During Monday’s proceedings, prosecutors repeatedly signaled their intent to introduce rebuttal witnesses as Tweah, serving as a defense witness, maintained his interpretation of the Public Financial Management (PFM) Law and defended decisions made while in office.
At multiple points during cross-examination, the prosecution indicated it would contest Tweah’s claims, particularly those related to exceeding approved budgets under the PFM framework. “Prosecution gives notice to produce rebuttal witness,” court records stated.
This move suggests the state is preparing to counter the defense’s argument that the transactions in question were lawful or justified under emergency or national security considerations.
Continuing his testimony, Tweah insisted that the case against him and his co-defendants lacks credible evidence. “The prosecution lacks evidence, and its case is based on assumptions and guesses, as has been demonstrated in this court,” he said.
He also criticized the LACC’s investigation, arguing that financial transactions were not fully traced. “No LACC investigator should ever say they are not interested in the operational details of public money,” Tweah testified.
A key issue in the trial is whether funds linked to national security operations were properly authorized and accounted for. When prosecutors raised questions about accountability under the National Security Reform Act, the defense objected.
“Objection… the document speaks for itself,” the defense argued. The court sustained the objection, ruling: “Objection sustained. So ordered.” Prosecutors indicated they would revisit the matter through rebuttal evidence.
Tweah maintained that all actions taken during his tenure were lawful and followed proper approval channels. “The approval under consideration was lawful and met the consent of the National Security Council… nothing was bypassed,” he stated.
He further defended his authority under the PFM Law, noting: “Section 26 empowers the Minister to exceed the budget under national emergency circumstances… exceeding the budget amount is not an illegal action.”
When asked whether such excess spending was reported to the Legislature, he responded:
“The law requires that excess expenditure be itemized and reported at the end of the fiscal year.”
Prosecutors also raised concerns about the lack of formal procurement processes in certain transactions, including those during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tweah acknowledged that no competitive bidding process was followed.
“No formal procurement was done because the government and international partners agreed that the best entity to handle it was the World Food Programme (WFP),” he explained.
Jurors posed questions regarding Tweah’s responsibilities and reporting obligations. “My terms of reference were to ensure that all public monies are properly managed under the PFM Law,” he said.
He also confirmed that he did not appear before LACC investigators prior to his indictment. “I did not attend any investigation at the LACC… I did not review the emails until I was indicted,” he stated.
In an emotional moment, Tweah spoke about the personal impact of the case. “I will die fighting to protect my reputation and my innocence… if I did not commit a crime, I do not believe I should be punished,” he declared.
The court adjourned proceedings due to technical issues and ordered the trial to resume on Tuesday, April 28, 2026.
With the prosecution preparing to present rebuttal witnesses, the trial is expected to continue focusing on the handling of public funds, the scope of ministerial authority, and the balance between national security and accountability.
