SUPREME COURT, MONROVIA – The Supreme Court of Liberia has dealt a decisive blow to former Finance and Development Planning Minister Samuel D. Tweah and his co-petitioners, rejecting their petition for re-argument and effectively clearing the path for their criminal trial to proceed. In a ruling delivered during its October Term A.D. 2026, the High Court made it unmistakably clear that presidential immunity does not extend to former officials seeking refuge under Article 61 of the Constitution.
Tweah, along with former Acting Justice Minister Counsellor Nyenati Tuan, former Financial Intelligence Agency Director Stanley S. Ford, former FIA Comptroller D. Moses P. Cooper, and former National Security Advisor Jefferson Karmoh, had petitioned the Court for re-argument following its December 18, 2025 opinion. They also sought a writ of prohibition against Criminal Court “C” Judge Roosevelt Willie, who has been presiding over the matter by special assignment.
But the Supreme Court was unmoved.
In its judgment dated February 12, 2026, the Court acknowledged a technical inadvertence in its previous opinion, citing Section 2(g) instead of Section 3(b) of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act regarding the composition of the National Security Council. However, the justices stressed that this clerical error had no bearing on the substance of their ruling.
“The inadvertence does not affect the conclusion of the Court’s Opinion of December 18, 2025,” the judgment emphasized, reaffirming that the petitioners do not enjoy the immunity granted exclusively to the President under Article 61 of the Liberian Constitution.
The ruling strikes at the heart of the petitioners’ core defense strategy. By attempting to anchor their protection to presidential immunity, the former officials were effectively arguing that actions taken within the orbit of executive authority shielded them from prosecution. The Supreme Court has now dismantled that argument in unequivocal terms.
Appearing for the petitioners were Counsellors Arthur T. Johnson, Micah Wilkins Wright, Norris Tweah, and James Kumeh. Representing the Republic were Solicitor General Augustine C. Fayiah, Montserrado County Attorney Richard Scott, and Ministry of Justice lawyers Jerry D.K. Galawolu and Joel Elkenah Theoway.
The Court’s reliance on Rule IX of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court further narrowed the petitioners’ options. The rule allows re-argument only once and strictly on grounds of a “palpable substantial mistake” resulting from inadvertently overlooking a fact or point of law. The justices concluded that while a citation error occurred, it did not amount to a substantive legal mistake warranting reversal.
In firm language, the Court denied the petition for re-argument and ordered its Clerk to issue a mandate directing the lower court to resume jurisdiction and proceed in line with the Supreme Court’s judgment. The message was clear: the criminal proceedings must continue without further delay.
Notably, Associate Justices Jamesetta Howard Wolokolie and Ceaineh D. Clinton-Johnson recused themselves from the hearing and determination of the case. Justice Wolokolie cited affinity with one of the parties, while Justice Clinton-Johnson also stepped aside. Their recusals did not, however, affect the authority or finality of the decision rendered by the remaining members of the bench.
With Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay Sr. and Associate Justices Yussif D. Kaba and Boakai N. Kanneh signing onto the judgment, the Supreme Court has drawn a hard constitutional line. The era of invoking presidential proximity as a shield against prosecution faces a stern judicial test.
