Monrovia-Criminal Court 'A' Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie has ordered the immediate transfer of all Capitol Arson Attack defendants from Kakata Central Prison in Margibi County back to the Monrovia Central Prison, citing legal jurisdiction and the defendants' right to counsel.
Willie N. Tokpah
The ruling follows heated arguments in court over a 32-count motion to suppress evidence filed by defense lawyers, who allege serious constitutional and procedural violations in the state's handling of the investigation, ranging from illegal search and seizure to allegations of torture and unauthorized forensic analysis.
However, the court has upheld Jurisdiction, Right to Counsel in one of the issues raised during the argument.
Judge Willie emphasized that the ongoing arson trial is being held in Montserrado County, not Margibi, and therefore, "the defendants must be kept within the jurisdiction of the court trying the case."
He granted the defense's request to have the defendants returned to Monrovia, stating that their prolonged detention in Kakata undermined their right to effective legal representation.
"If the Ministry of Justice claims there is no space to hold them at the Monrovia Central Prison," the judge stated, "then the state must create space, by releasing pretrial detainees who are eligible for bail, if necessary."
Not a Political Trial, Judge Warns
Amid public interest and growing political commentary surrounding the high-profile case, Judge Willie reiterated that the trial is not political.
"This Court has no intention to keep anyone in prison who has not committed a capital offense requiring a bond," he said.
However, he also ruled that the bail bond previously submitted on behalf of the defendants was invalid and stressed that three of the accused remain a flight risk.
He said the defendants may be released only upon the posting of appropriate and valid bond instruments.
Defense Launches 32-Count Challenge to State's Evidence
Led by a team of prominent legal counsels including Cllrs. Arthur Johnson, Wilkins Wright, and Jonathan Massaquoi, the defense presented a blistering motion to suppress the prosecution's evidence, citing constitutional, statutory, and procedural violations.
Cllr. Arthur Johnson argued that the NSA, not the Liberian National Police (LNP), conducted the core investigation despite lacking statutory authority to do so.
He argued that evidence seized during searches lacked proper judicial authorization and failed to comply with Chapter 11, Section 11.3 of the Criminal Procedure Law.
Cllr. Johnson stated that the defendants were not present during the search and seizure operations, undermining the legal chain of custody of crucial items, including a chloride bottle allegedly linked to the arson.
He added that the call logs used as evidence were obtained without court order, violating privacy rights under Liberian law and lacking authentication.
"The Liberia Petroleum Refining Company (LPRC) conducted forensic analysis without legal authority and failed to notify the defendants of its examination process," Cllr. Johnson argued.
Cllr. Johnson further alleged that the defendants were tortured and sodomized during their detention at the NSA, calling the investigative process "clandestine, uncivilized, and barbaric."
Prosecution Denies Violations, Defends NSA's Involvement
One of the State prosecutors, Cllr. Richard Scott, rejected the motion in its entirety, urging the court to dismiss it and allow the trial to proceed.
Cllr. Scott argued that the NSA's involvement was legally authorized by the Ministry of Justice, citing the agency's technical expertise.
He said search and seizure actions were approved by the court, and the defense's acknowledgment of these requests contradicts their suppression arguments.
On the issue of call logs, Scott cited precedent from the Civil Mining Case involving Cllr. Varney Sherman, stating that privacy does not apply in criminal investigations.
He noted that credible evidence of torture was presented, and the majority of the state's evidence is digital in nature, undermining the argument that it was obtained through coercion.
Cllr. Scott dismissed the motion as a delay tactic, stating, "The defense is simply trying to prevent this case from moving forward."
The Capitol Arson case, stemming from a suspected political attack on Liberia's Capitol Building, has attracted significant national attention, with implications for civil liberties, the rule of law, and the proper limits of state investigative powers.
The court is expected to rule on the motion to suppress evidence on Thursday, September 4.
A decision in favor of the defense could alter the trajectory of the case, or even dismantle the prosecution's evidence entirely.