By Our Reporter | Smart News Liberia
MONROVIA – Testimony from former Executive Director of the Financial Intelligence Agency, Stanley Ford, has added a new layer of controversy to the ongoing US$6.2 million trial, as conflicting accounts from key officials raise serious questions about the handling of the disputed funds. At the center of the dispute is the FIA’s role in the transaction, with its involvement described differently by key witnesses.
Testifying earlier, former FIA Executive Director Stanley Ford told the court that the agency plays a significant role in Liberia’s joint security framework, often working alongside law enforcement and security institutions under confidential conditions.
Ford clarified that a July 2023 communication involving the FIA was not intended to formally incorporate the agency into the joint security structure, but rather to assign it a communication identifier known as “U-800.”
However, his explanation suggested that the FIA maintained a close operational link with national security activities, a position that appears to differ from other testimonies presented before the court.
“Sensitive financial intelligence cannot be freely disclosed,” Ford stated, underscoring the secretive nature of the agency’s work.
In contrast, former National Security Advisor Jefferson Karmoh firmly denied any involvement in authorizing or directing the transfer of the US$6.2 million to the FIA.
Karmoh rejected claims that he collaborated with former Acting Justice Minister Nyanti Tuan in facilitating the movement of the funds, insisting that he had no discussions with Tuan on financial matters during 2023.
He told the court that he only became aware of the transaction after receiving a copied communication, describing allegations that he approved the transfer as inaccurate.
“My letter was misunderstood,” Karmoh said, maintaining that his actions were strictly administrative and unrelated to any financial authorization.
While acknowledging that he assigned the FIA the Unit 800 communication code, Karmoh emphasized that the designation was limited to radio communication within the security network and did not confer any operational authority over funds.
He further argued that the FIA is not a formal member of the National Security Council, dismissing suggestions that his correspondence effectively integrated the agency into that structure.
But taking the stand on Day 68 of the trial, Cllr. Nyanti Tuan offered a conflicting narrative that directly challenged Karmoh’s version of events.
Tuan, who previously served as Acting Minister of Justice, Attorney General, and Chairman of the Joint Security, told the court that he had multiple engagements with Karmoh during 2023 regarding security-related funding.
According to Tuan, Karmoh informed him about the availability of funds for joint security operations and requested that he draft a letter to the FIA to facilitate the process.
“He was aware,” Tuan told the court, insisting that Karmoh’s failure to object at the time should be interpreted as agreement. “If it was not true, he had time to deny it.”
Tuan further argued that the prosecution’s case lacks substance, pointing out what he described as major gaps in the evidence presented.
“The prosecution has not shown who received the money, nor proven that any defendant personally benefited,” he said, adding that the absence of proof undermines the entire case.
He maintained that if allegations of theft cannot be substantiated, then related charges should not stand.
A central question emerging from the trial is whether the actions taken were legitimate decisions tied to national security needs or violations of Liberia’s financial management laws.
Tuan defended the use of the FIA in the transaction, arguing that the funds were part of an emergency response during the 2023 electoral period, when security concerns were heightened.
“Security is based on results, not paper trail,” he said, suggesting that intelligence operations often require discretion and may not follow conventional documentation processes.
As the proceedings move toward conclusion, final arguments from both prosecution and defense teams are expected on May 8, 2026.
