By Staff Writer | Smart News Liberia
MONROVIA – The legal fallout from Liberia’s controversial US$6.2 million economic sabotage trial has deepened after defense lawyers representing former Acting Justice Minister Nyenati Tuan and former National Security Advisor Jefferson S. Karmoh formally requested a new trial, arguing that the jury’s verdicts against their clients contradict the acquittals of former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah Jr. and former FIA Comptroller D. Moses P. Cooper.
The motion, filed before Criminal Court “C” Judge Ousman F. Feika, has added another dramatic layer to one of Liberia’s most politically charged corruption prosecutions in recent years. Lawyers for Tuan and Karmoh contend that the jury delivered inconsistent findings that undermine the integrity of the entire case and warrant a complete retrial.
The prosecution, led by the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission, accused the former officials of participating in the alleged unlawful transfer and use of more than US$6.2 million and L$1 billion reportedly earmarked for national security operations during the final period of former President George Weah’s administration.
Prosecutors charged the defendants with multiple offenses, including economic sabotage, theft of public funds, money laundering, criminal facilitation, conspiracy, misuse of public money, and fraud against the internal revenue of Liberia. However, after 46 days of legal proceedings at Criminal Court “C” at the Temple of Justice, the jury returned a mixed and highly debated verdict.
The twelve-member jury fully acquitted Tweah and Cooper on all charges, while returning guilty verdicts and hung counts against other defendants. Tweah was found not guilty of criminal conspiracy, economic sabotage, criminal facilitation, theft of public funds, and money laundering. Cooper was similarly cleared of all accusations brought against him by prosecutors.
In contrast, Nyenati Tuan was convicted on charges of theft of public funds, criminal facilitation, and theft of property, while jurors failed to reach a decision on the money laundering charge. He was, however, acquitted of economic sabotage. Jefferson Karmoh was convicted of criminal facilitation and criminal conspiracy, but acquitted of economic sabotage and theft of public funds, while jurors remained divided on the theft of property charge.
Former Financial Intelligence Agency Director General Stanley S. Ford also received a complicated verdict, with jurors deadlocked on criminal conspiracy, criminal facilitation, theft of public funds, and money laundering counts, although he was acquitted of economic sabotage. A hung verdict means jurors failed to obtain the required supermajority needed to either convict or acquit a defendant.
Defense lawyers now argue that the acquittals of Tweah and Cooper fundamentally weakened the prosecution’s theory of conspiracy. According to the filing, prosecutors consistently portrayed Tweah as the key official who authorized the disputed transactions, while Cooper was accused of physically withdrawing the controversial FIA cheques tied to the alleged scheme.
The motion claims that once the jury rejected criminal liability against both men, the remaining guilty verdicts against Tuan and Karmoh became legally inconsistent and unsupported by logic. “If the jury acquitted Cooper, the alleged payee and physical withdrawer of the funds, the same jury could not rationally convict Tuan of theft absent separate evidence,” the defense argued in its filing before the court.
Lawyers for the two former officials also accused prosecutors of relying heavily on assumptions, circumstantial evidence, and interpretations of official government communications rather than presenting direct proof linking their clients to criminal conduct. They insisted the government failed to establish that either defendant personally stole, converted, concealed, or benefited from the funds at the center of the case.
A major point raised in the motion centers on a September 5, 2023 communication authored by Tuan during his tenure as Acting Justice Minister and head of Joint Security. Prosecutors allegedly used the letter as evidence of conspiracy and criminal facilitation. However, the defense maintains that the document merely informed the Financial Intelligence Agency that funding for Joint Security operations had been secured and that the FIA had been designated as the channel for disbursement.
The filing further argues that ordinary administrative coordination among security institutions cannot automatically be interpreted as criminal conduct without clear evidence of unlawful intent. Defense lawyers insist the prosecution failed to bridge the gap between official governmental duties and criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt.
The motion for a new trial now places Judge Feika at the center of another critical legal decision in a case that has already sparked intense national debate over accountability, political influence, and the credibility of Liberia’s justice system. If granted, the court could reopen proceedings against Tuan and Karmoh despite the jury’s verdicts.
Meanwhile, the divided outcome of the trial continues to fuel public controversy, with supporters of the acquitted defendants claiming the verdict exposed weaknesses in the government’s corruption case, while others argue the convictions demonstrate that some officials must still be held accountable. With appeals, legal motions, and political reactions mounting, the US$6.2 million corruption case appears far from over.
