Defense Lawyer Accuses Asset Recovery Taskforce of Pressuring Witnesses; AREPT Denies Wrongdoing and Calls Incident a Misunderstanding
PAYNESVILLE, Liberia — A fresh confrontation involving defense counsel and Liberia’s Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Taskforce (AREPT) has introduced a new and potentially explosive dimension into the ongoing Saudi rice criminal trial, after defense lawyer Cllr. Gbawou Kowou accused the taskforce of attempting to intimidate or interfere with witnesses who recently testified for the defense.
AREPT, however, has strongly denied the allegation, insisting that the individuals at the center of the controversy were not summoned for questioning and that its lawyers asked them to leave after discovering that they had recently appeared as defense witnesses in Criminal Court “C.”
The confrontation reportedly unfolded Sunday at AREPT’s headquarters in Paynesville, where Cllr. Kowou went to the facility and began livestreaming the incident.
According to Kowou, witnesses who had testified for the accused in court had been brought to the taskforce’s premises and were being pressured concerning their testimony.
The defense lawyer publicly demanded access to the compound, maintaining that his witnesses were inside and questioning why they had been taken to an institution associated with the government’s investigation and prosecution of the case.
Kowou specifically accused AREPT Chairman Cllr. Edwin Kla Martin of directing the witnesses to report to the agency.
The lawyer’s central concern was that the witnesses had already testified before Criminal Court “C” and, in his view, should not subsequently be subjected to contact or questioning by officials connected to the prosecution in circumstances that could influence, intimidate or otherwise interfere with their evidence.
AREPT Rejects the Allegation
AREPT has presented a markedly different account.
According to the taskforce, the individuals were not brought to the agency for interrogation or to discuss their courtroom testimony.
AREPT spokesperson Joseph F. Daniels said a potential witness who had previously provided information to investigators arrived at the taskforce accompanied by two individuals who were familiar with the case.
The taskforce says its lawyers initially did not know that the two individuals had recently testified as defense witnesses.
Once that became known, AREPT said, the lawyers immediately asked them to leave.
The agency therefore denies threatening, intimidating or attempting to influence the witnesses and maintains that the confrontation resulted from a misunderstanding rather than a deliberate attempt at witness interference.
AREPT has also challenged the defense to present evidence to the court if it believes witness tampering actually occurred.
A Serious Issue for the Court
Despite the competing accounts, the incident raises questions that could become important to the trial.
Witnesses are central to any criminal proceeding, and allegations that witnesses were contacted, pressured or intimidated after giving evidence can raise serious concerns about the integrity of the judicial process.
But an allegation alone does not establish that witness tampering occurred.
The critical issue is therefore what actually happened inside and around the AREPT facility.
Were the witnesses summoned?
Did they voluntarily accompany someone to the facility?
Who contacted them?
What was discussed?
Were they questioned about their testimony?
Were they threatened or pressured?
Was anyone instructed to alter or withdraw evidence?
And is there documentary, video, telephone or witness evidence capable of independently establishing what occurred?
Those questions may ultimately have to be answered before the court.
The Timing Raises Additional Questions
The controversy comes as the defense has increasingly challenged the prosecution’s account of what happened to the Saudi-donated rice.
The prosecution has alleged that thousands of bags of rice donated by Saudi Arabia were diverted or unlawfully handled. AREPT’s original indictment alleged that 25,054 bags, valued at approximately US$425,918, were unlawfully diverted.
But defense witnesses have presented a different account.
Former GSA official Edris Bility, for example, recently produced 10 signed gate passes which he said documented the release of 5,000 bags destined for the NDMA’s Gbarnga Regional Hub. He maintained that the rice left the warehouse through an established documentation process.
Former Internal Affairs Minister Varney A. Sirleaf also testified that the movement of rice between government institutions followed an inter-agency process prompted by concerns over storage conditions and inventory management.
Those defense accounts directly challenge important aspects of the prosecution’s theory.
Against that backdrop, any allegation that defense witnesses were subsequently pressured becomes particularly sensitive.
Not Yet a Finding of Witness Tampering
For now, however, there is no reported judicial finding that AREPT or Cllr. Martin tampered with witnesses.
The defense has made a serious allegation.
AREPT has issued a serious denial.
The responsible question for the justice system is not which side makes the louder accusation, but whether the evidence can establish what actually happened.
If the defense possesses evidence showing that witnesses were threatened or pressured because of their testimony, it would be a matter for the court to examine.
If AREPT’s explanation is accurate—that the witnesses were not summoned, were not questioned and were asked to leave once their identities became known—then the allegation may ultimately prove to have arisen from a misunderstanding.
A Test of the Saudi Rice Prosecution
The controversy nevertheless presents another test for a prosecution that has already attracted intense public attention.
The Saudi rice case was presented by the government as an important demonstration of its commitment to holding public officials accountable for alleged misuse of public resources.
The trial has now moved into a critical phase in which defense witnesses are challenging the government’s interpretation of the movement, storage and distribution of the rice.
The integrity of that process therefore matters just as much as the allegations contained in the indictment.
The public does not merely need convictions.
It needs a trial in which witnesses can testify without intimidation, accused persons can challenge the government’s evidence without interference, prosecutors can present their case without obstruction, and every disputed allegation can ultimately be tested before an impartial court.
The latest confrontation at AREPT has therefore opened a new question in the Saudi rice case:
Were defense witnesses genuinely subjected to pressure—or did a misunderstanding escalate into an accusation of witness tampering?
The answer should come from evidence, not political allegiance, public pressure or competing livestreams.
The court, ultimately, is where that evidence must be tested.
