By Archie Ayouba Boan
MONROVIA – Fresh concerns have emerged over the integrity of jury proceedings in the high-profile US$6.2 million corruption case involving former Finance and Development Planning Minister Samuel D. Tweah and several former government officials, following allegations that jurors may have received outside communications while under court-ordered sequestration.
Tweah and some of his co-defendants were acquitted by a jury on all charges stemming from allegations surrounding the handling of US$6.2 million in government funds earmarked for national security operations. The defendants were found not guilty of Economic Sabotage, Theft of Property, Money Laundering, Criminal Facilitation, and Criminal Conspiracy, bringing an end to one of the country’s most closely watched corruption trials.
However, the verdict has come under renewed scrutiny after claims surfaced that members of the jury may have been exposed to external influence during the trial.
According to information obtained by Verity News, a court officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, disclosed that at least nine of the 15 jurors reportedly informed the judge of Criminal Court “C” that they had received multiple phone calls and text messages during the period they were expected to remain isolated from outside contact.
The court officer further alleged that more than eight mobile phones were found to have been in the possession of jurors during sequestration, raising concerns about potential violations of court procedures intended to preserve the impartiality of jury deliberations.
“Yes, they have confirmed that there were more than eight cellphones with them. So, that suggests they were most likely influenced or interfered with,” the court officer told Verity News. “With this confession, which somehow points to alleged jury tampering, Arthur Johnson risks losing his law license and the case could be retried.”
The allegations have not been independently verified by the court, and no formal findings have been made regarding whether jurors were improperly influenced. Nonetheless, legal observers say that if credible evidence of jury tampering is established, it could have far-reaching consequences, including disciplinary proceedings against individuals found responsible and the possibility of a retrial.
Cllr. Arthur Johnson, who served as defense counsel during the proceedings, has not been charged with any wrongdoing, and no court has found him responsible for jury interference. Likewise, former Finance Minister Samuel Tweah has not been accused by any court of participating in efforts to influence jurors.
Legal experts note that jury tampering is considered a serious offense because it strikes at the heart of a defendant’s right to a fair trial and the public’s confidence in the justice system. Any proven attempt to improperly contact, influence, or communicate with jurors during deliberations or sequestration could trigger judicial review of a verdict.
The original case attracted widespread public attention because it involved senior former government officials and allegations of financial misconduct relating to public funds. The acquittal of Tweah and his co-defendants was welcomed by supporters but criticized by others who questioned the prosecution’s handling of the case.
As of press time, neither Criminal Court “C” nor Liberia’s Judiciary had publicly announced an investigation into the latest allegations. No charges relating to jury tampering have been filed against any individual connected to the case.
With questions now being raised about the conduct of jurors during sequestration, attention is expected to shift to whether the Judiciary will launch a formal inquiry into the claims and determine whether the allegations warrant further legal action.
