MONROVIA – Former Speaker of the House of Representatives of Liberia, J. Fonati Koffa, has strongly criticized the decision to disband the jury in the ongoing Capitol arson case, describing the move as fundamentally unfair and questioning the strength of the prosecution’s evidence.
Koffa made the remarks during a brief interview with judicial reporters on Thursday, March 5, 2026, on the grounds of the Supreme Court of Liberia, shortly after the appearance of Roosevelt Z. Willie for a conference based on a formal notice issued on March 2, 2026, by Yussif D. Kaba.
His comments came after the Supreme Court ordered a temporary halt to the proceedings following a petition filed by Koffa and eight other defendants challenging the dismissal of the jury.
Explaining his legal challenge, Koffa compared the prosecution’s actions to restarting a football match midway through the game.
“I think it would be a bad analogy, but I’m going to use it anyway because I like to make things simple,” Koffa told reporters. “Imagine the game started and we are about twenty minutes into it, and suddenly the referee decides he doesn’t like the linesman and restarts the game. That raises a fundamental issue of fairness.”
According to Koffa, the trial had already begun and the prosecution had claimed it possessed overwhelming evidence against the defendants. He argued that if such evidence truly existed, the case should have proceeded before the jury rather than disbanding it.
“The trial was on, and you disbanded the jury when the prosecution said it had overwhelming evidence,” he said. “If the evidence was truly overwhelming, then the weight of that evidence should convince the jury. Disbanding them raises serious concerns about fairness.”
The former Speaker also dismissed the prosecution’s request for a change of venue, describing the move as baseless.
“The whole change of venue issue is laughable,” he said. “You say you have overwhelming evidence, but now you want to move the case somewhere else. Where will you go that will change the evidence? You simply do not have the evidence.”
Koffa further argued that the prosecution’s first witness had already weakened the case against the defendants.
“Your first witness proved that you do not have a case,” he asserted. “Even if you take this case to Timbuktu, the verdict will still be not guilty because there is no evidence.”
While rejecting suggestions that the prosecution’s actions were sinister, Koffa maintained that the case lacks the evidence previously presented to the public.
“I’m not saying anything sinister other than the prosecutor does not have the evidence they convinced the public they had,” he stated.
Koffa emphasized that he remains ready to face trial in any court but insisted that the process must be fair and guided strictly by the evidence.
“I’m willing to go anywhere in the court,” he said. “What I’m not willing to do is play this game until the prosecution wins. Let the evidence be tested and let a verdict come out.”
The controversy stems from a decision by Judge Willie to disband the jury in the high-profile Capitol arson case. In response, Koffa and eight others petitioned the Supreme Court seeking a writ to block the judge’s action, arguing that the move was irregular and potentially damaging to the fairness of the proceedings.
The Court also issued a stay order halting all proceedings in the Capitol arson case until the matter is reviewed, effectively pausing the trial while the petition is considered.
