By G. Watson Richards
The ongoing economic sabotage case at Criminal Court ‘C’ at the Temple of Justice took a contentious turn Monday, as prosecutors and defense lawyers clashed over the role of the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA) in alleged financial misconduct involving former senior government officials.
Testifying under cross-examination, prosecution’s lead witness, Baba Mohammed Boika, alleged that the FIA was used as a conduit to convert public funds as part of a coordinated scheme involving top officials.
Boika further claimed that the alleged operation involved senior figures, including the Director General of the FIA, Stanley Forh, though the extent of his role remains a matter of dispute before the court.
His testimony focused on whether the FIA was improperly incorporated into joint security operations and subsequently used as a channel for funds that investigators say were not properly accounted for.
Central to the prosecution’s case is former National Security Advisor Jefferson Karmoh, whom investigators accuse of initiating actions that enabled the alleged scheme. Reading from the court record, the witness stated:
“The role played by Hon. Karmoh provided a platform for the accounts of the FIA to be used as a conduit through which the said funds will be transferred… the decision to admit the FIA was for the sole purpose of using the FIA’s account for the channeling of the said funds.”
The witness emphasized that such use of the FIA was unprecedented:
“Another key point that the Court and jury should know is that the FIA since its establishment has never been used for receiving funds on behalf of joint security… So this is the first of its kind.”
Investigators are relying in part on a September 5, 2023 communication from then Acting Justice Minister Cllr. Nyanti Tuan, which informed the FIA of funding for national joint security operations and instructed that the funds be released accordingly.
The defense, however, strongly challenged both the interpretation of the letter and the broader allegations. Counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to demonstrate any clear act of theft or intent to deprive the government of funds.
“You charged Hon. Karmoh for theft of property-what conduct constituted theft?” defense counsel pressed during cross-examination.
In response, the witness maintained that the alleged actions should be viewed collectively:
“All of the defendants acted in concert… Hon. Karmoh initiated the entire scheme and provided a platform for the FIA account to be used.”
Defense lawyers also questioned the legal foundation of the investigation, arguing that the witness misunderstood Liberia’s national security structure.
“Mr. Witness, you are confusing the National Security Council membership and the supporting group… The supporting group is different,” counsel argued.
Prosecutors objected repeatedly, describing the defense’s questions as argumentative and legally improper. The court sustained several of those objections.
In one exchange:
Objection: “Invading the court as to the law… argumentative… badgering the witness…”
The Court: “Objection sustained on the last ground.”
And in another:
Objection: “Irrelevant and immaterial.”
The Court: “Objection sustained. So ordered.”
Despite the rulings, the defense continued to challenge the scope and credibility of the investigation, including the witness’s experience with national security-related cases, an area largely limited by the court following objections.
Many legal pundits say the case may ultimately hinge on whether the prosecution can prove that involving the FIA was part of a deliberate scheme to misappropriate public funds, or whether it was an administrative decision taken within the scope of national security coordination.
The trial is ongoing, with further testimony and evidence expected in the coming days.
