Nine out of fifteen jurors have been selected to serve in the high-profile economic sabotage trial involving former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah and other former officials of government accused of mismanaging approximately US$6.2 million in public funds.
The case, widely known as the ‘Tweah and others trial’, is currently being presided over by Criminal Court ‘C’ Judge Osuman F. Feikai at the Temple of Justice in Monrovia.
As jury selection progresses, lawyers representing the accused have raised serious procedural objections, arguing that the prosecution has failed to provide critical evidence required for a fair trial.
Defense Raises Discovery Concerns
During proceedings on Thursday, defense counsel formally requested that the court order the prosecution to immediately provide all documentary evidence intended to be used during the trial. The defense argued that access to such material-commonly referred to as discovery-is guaranteed under both Liberia’s Constitution and statutory law.
According to the defense, when the case was first called for trial before Judge Willie, prosecutors informed the court that they did not yet possess all relevant evidence. They explained that several government institutions had been subpoenaed to produce key financial records and documents.
Those institutions include the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning, the Financial Intelligence Agency of Liberia, and the Central Bank of Liberia.
Defense lawyers said that based on the prosecution’s request at the time, the court allowed proceedings to continue while prosecutors sought to obtain the documents.
However, the defense maintains that the prosecution has since failed to produce those materials, despite the trial moving forward.
“The defense cannot adequately prepare a case when it has not been fully acquainted with the evidence intended to be used against the defendants,” counsel argued in court. They described the situation as unfair and prejudicial, insisting that the prosecution should be compelled to immediately disclose all materials forming part of the case.
Request for Court Sequestration
In addition to the discovery dispute, one of the defense attorneys also requested that the court be sequestered throughout the duration of the trial, a measure typically sought in high-profile cases to limit outside influence on jurors.
Prosecution Responds
In response, prosecutors told the court that discovery had already been conducted during an earlier pre-trial conference.
According to the prosecution, members of the defense team-including Cllr. Arthur Johnson-were present when the materials were presented and discussed.
The prosecution maintains that it has complied with procedural requirements and that the defense has already been provided with the relevant information necessary to proceed.
Trial Continues
The dispute over discovery comes as jury selection nears completion, with nine jurors already seated from a panel of fifteen required for the trial.
The case has drawn significant public attention due to its connection to alleged financial misconduct involving senior officials of the former administration and millions of dollars in public funds.
