By Staff Writer | Smart News Liberia
MONROVIA – Jurors in Liberia’s closely watched national security spending case on Monday, April 27, 2026, subjected former Finance and Development Planning Minister Samuel D. Tweah Jr. to intense questioning over allegations of abuse of authority, irregular fund transfers, and the legality of emergency expenditures during his time in office.
The courtroom exchange came after weeks of testimony as prosecutors formally closed their case following Tweah’s cross-examination. Attention then shifted to jurors, whose direct questions underscored growing concern over decisions taken by the former minister.
One of the central issues raised involved Tweah’s responsibilities under Liberia’s Public Financial Management (PFM) Law. Asked to explain his official mandate, Tweah said his duty was to ensure the lawful management of public funds and guarantee that entities owing government revenue complied with payment obligations.
When questioned about reporting lines, Tweah stated that the law placed him directly under the authority of the President, while also making him accountable to the Legislature, which approves the national budget.
The exchange highlighted one of the trial’s key themes: the extent of discretion available to a Finance Minister acting under presidential authority.
Jurors also turned their attention to the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) investigation, asking whether Tweah had ever been invited for questioning before indictment. He said he had not appeared because he was outside Liberia and only became aware of emailed invitations after charges were filed.
The panel further examined the controversial transfer of government funds to the World Food Programme during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tweah defended the move, describing the health crisis as a national emergency requiring swift intervention.
He admitted that standard procurement procedures were not followed, but argued that emergency situations often require urgent lawful consensus among government actors and development partners rather than competitive bidding.
Another major issue involved earlier testimony that national security funds were at times processed through the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL). When jurors asked whether the CBL was part of the National Joint Security structure, Tweah said it was not, but maintained that the bank had historically cashed cheques for security institutions.
Jurors also referenced testimony from CBL cashier Theo Larmie, who reportedly said he never handled National Joint Security funds. Tweah responded that classified security operations are conducted on a need-to-know basis and said such financial practices had existed for more than two decades.
Questions also centered on the 2023 Financial Intelligence Agency emergency transfer. Tweah told the court the request arose from an oral consensus of the National Security Council, a process he said had been confirmed by a former Defense Minister now testifying for the prosecution.
He argued that written requests were not necessary because accountability is established through budget allotments, approvals, and audit trails rather than the form in which a request is made.
Jurors further asked who has authority to declare a national emergency. Tweah replied that the President, as Commander-in-Chief and head of the National Security Council, may declare both public and confidential emergencies that trigger security spending mechanisms.
Tweah also maintained his earlier criticism that the prosecution’s case was built on assumptions and rushed conclusions. He insisted investigators failed to properly trace the transactions, particularly given the classified nature of some national security expenditures.
On funding for the National Elections Commission, Tweah acknowledged that spending exceeded the approved budget ceiling. However, he cited Section 26 of the PFM Law, which he said allows the Finance Minister to exceed limits during emergencies so long as the overrun is disclosed in end-of-year financial reports.
Asked whether prior legislative approval was required for such overspending, Tweah argued that the law requires reporting to lawmakers, not advance authorization, because the Legislature had already granted that power through statute.
With the prosecution now resting its case, the matter enters a critical stage. Jurors’ pointed questions revealed the central legal battle ahead: whether Tweah lawfully exercised ministerial authority, whether emergency powers justified deviations from standard procedures, and whether investigators properly accounted for classified national security spending.
The defense is expected to outline its next moves as the high-stakes trial continues to draw national attention over issues of executive power, secrecy, and public financial accountability.
