…But Shifting Justifications Expose Gaps In Testimony
By Amos Harris
Former Minister of Finance and Development Planning, Samuel D. Tweah, appeared in Criminal Court “C” on Monday, April 20, 2026, to mount a detailed defense of his handling of emergency public funds. His testimony was repeatedly challenged by prosecutors, who pointed to what they described as inconsistencies, omissions, and shifting interpretations of the law.
Tweah, who served as Finance Minister from January 2018 to January 2024, is standing trial alongside four former government officials over allegations involving the unauthorized approval and transfer of more than L$1 billion and US$500,000 in public funds through the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA). The state contends that the transactions bypassed required procedures under Liberia’s public financial management framework. Rather than clarifying the disputed transfers, Tweah’s lengthy testimony appeared to deepen legal and procedural uncertainty around how the funds were authorized and disbursed.
Central to Tweah’s defense was his reliance on the Public Financial Management (PFM) Law and the National Budget, which he cited as the legal basis for his authority to approve spending. However, his interpretation of those instruments appeared to shift during questioning. At one point, Tweah told the court that the approval of the national budget alone grants the Finance Minister full authority to execute expenditures without additional agency requests. Yet earlier in his testimony, he had stated the opposite, insisting that the request for resources is the most sufficient trigger for expenditure. Prosecutors seized on this apparent contradiction, arguing that Tweah’s explanations suggested an attempt to reconstruct legal standards in a manner that aligned with the disputed transactions rather than reflecting established procedures. Observers in the courtroom noted that the conflicting interpretations raised fundamental questions about how expenditure authority is triggered and documented within Liberia’s public finance system.
Tweah further defended the contested transactions by framing them as emergency-related spending approved through the National Security Council (NSC). He told the jury that once the NSC endorses an intervention, ministerial authority is effectively completed, stating that once the NSC approves the intervention, the Minister’s authority is complete. However, prosecutors countered that the PFM Law requires any expenditure exceeding approved budget lines to be reported to the Legislature under Section 26. They noted that no evidence was presented showing that the FIA-related transfers were formally reported to lawmakers. The prosecution argued that NSC approval, even if valid, does not replace statutory reporting obligations, and that the absence of legislative notification represents a procedural breach in itself.
Tweah also defended the use of a direct debit mechanism to facilitate the FIA transfers, insisting that it falls within the lawful budgetary framework. He told the court that direct debit is not outside the budget circle. However, in the same line of questioning, he acknowledged that the mechanism was not pre-allotted but may be allotted subsequently, a statement that prosecutors say introduces further ambiguity. Legal analysts following the proceedings noted that if funds were neither pre-allotted nor clearly documented after disbursement, it raises questions about where such transactions sit within the formal budget cycle.
A significant portion of the prosecution’s cross-examination focused on missing documentation, including written requests authorizing the transfers. Tweah dismissed the absence of paperwork as irrelevant, suggesting that investigators were wrongly interpreting missing documents as evidence of wrongdoing. He compared the situation to assuming theft based solely on the absence of visible money. However, in public finance administration, documentation is a foundational requirement for accountability. Legal observers in the courtroom noted that Tweah’s analogy appeared to undermine rather than strengthen his defense, particularly in a system governed by strict procedural audit standards.
Tweah further asserted that the Finance Minister holds broad discretionary power over expenditure decisions, stating that such discretion rests solely with the Minister. Prosecutors immediately challenged this assertion, arguing that ministerial discretion under the PFM Law is conditional and must operate within established procedures, documentation requirements, and legislative oversight mechanisms. By presenting discretion as absolute, critics argue Tweah may have inadvertently suggested an interpretation of the law that exceeds its statutory limits.
Tweah also attempted to justify the FIA payments by categorizing them as emergency spending. However, examples he cited during testimony, including allocations to the National Elections Commission, the World Food Programme, and UNFPA for census-related support, are typically considered routine budgetary expenditures rather than emergency interventions. Prosecutors argued that this comparison weakened his justification, suggesting that unrelated financial activities were being grouped together to normalize the disputed transfers.
Over nearly two hours on the witness stand, Tweah’s testimony moved between legal interpretation, policy justification, and metaphorical explanations that prosecutors say blurred rather than clarified key issues. During a recess, a member of the prosecution team was overheard remarking that Tweah appeared to be explaining the law as he wishes it were, not as it is. As proceedings continue, the central question for the court remains whether the former Finance Minister’s actions fell within lawful emergency spending authority or whether, as prosecutors argue, standard financial procedures were bypassed. For now, Tweah’s own testimony, marked by shifting explanations and contested interpretations, has become a central point of scrutiny in a trial that continues to test the boundaries of financial authority and accountability in public office.