By Amos Harris
The ongoing US$6.2 million corruption trial at Criminal Court “C” took a critical turn as the defense’s third witness, former National Security Advisor Jefferson S. Karmoh, distanced himself from key allegations linking him to the controversial handling of national security funds. His testimony directly challenged the prosecution’s narrative and raised fresh doubts about the interpretation of evidence presented by investigators.
Karmoh told the court that a letter he authored, which is central to the indictment, did not authorize any financial transactions nor formally integrate the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA) into a statutory security framework. Instead, he argued that investigators from the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) misinterpreted the document, particularly regarding references suggesting the FIA’s inclusion in the “national joint security apparatus.”
He emphasized that the so-called National Joint Security is not a legally established body but rather an informal coordination mechanism used by security institutions. This, he noted, contrasts sharply with the National Security Council (NSC), which is legally constituted under the 2011 National Security Reform and Intelligence Act with clearly defined powers and membership.
In a pointed critique of the investigation, Karmoh suggested that LACC investigators either failed to properly review his correspondence or lacked a sufficient understanding of Liberia’s national security architecture. His claim aligns with broader defense arguments in the trial that question the credibility and depth of the investigative process.
Addressing the core allegation of conspiracy, Karmoh denied claims that he approved or discussed the channeling of funds through the FIA. He maintained that his first knowledge of the disputed funds came through a copied communication and insisted there was no consultation between himself and other accused officials, as the prosecution alleged.
Furthermore, Karmoh criticized the investigative process by revealing that he was never questioned about the letter during his appearance before the LACC. He described the conclusions drawn by investigators as a “manufactured narrative,” adding that no evidence was presented to establish when or how any alleged consultation occurred.
The testimony adds to growing scrutiny surrounding the prosecution’s case, which has already faced challenges over missing documentation and gaps in tracing how the funds were ultimately utilized. Karmoh concluded by reaffirming that his actions, including assigning operational codes to institutions like the FIA, were consistent with his official duties and did not constitute any wrongdoing.
Comments are closed.