By Amos Harris
The Supreme Court of Liberia has rejected immunity claims filed by former Minister of Finance and Development Planning Samuel D. Tweah and several senior officials of the former Weah administration. In a landmark ruling, the Court determined that national security laws and executive authority do not shield officials from prosecution over alleged financial misconduct.
In a majority decision delivered on December 18, 2025, the Court denied a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Tweah, former Acting Minister of Justice Cllr. Nyanti Tuan, former National Security Adviser Jefferson Karmoh, and other co-defendants. The justices held that the petitioners’ claims of immunity were unsupported by law, noting specifically that Article 61 of the 1986 Constitution grants personal immunity only to a sitting president and does not extend to cabinet ministers, advisers, or other appointed officials.
Following a thorough review of the records and oral arguments, the Supreme Court held that the statutes governing the National Security Council clearly define who qualifies for legal protection and under what specific circumstances. The Court ruled that when a statute specifies certain persons as beneficiaries, any other person claiming benefits under said statute must be expressly co-opted. The justices noted that the Act establishing the National Security Council names its members and provides strictly limited conditions for succession, none of which applied to the defendants’ claims.
The justices further clarified that constitutional protections for the presidency are not transferable to other members of the executive branch. Additionally, the Court held that Liberia’s civil and criminal procedure laws permit ex parte applications without prior notice to opposing parties. Consequently, the Supreme Court denied the petition for prohibition, quashed the alternative writ, and ordered the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Costs for the legal action were disallowed.
During the proceedings, Associate Justice Jamesetta Howard Wolokolie recused herself due to family ties to one of the parties, while Justice Ceaineh D. Clinton Johnson also recused herself, having previously issued the alternative writ in the matter.
In oral arguments, the defense team, led by Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson, argued that prosecuting Tweah and the other defendants would amount to an indirect prosecution of former President George M. Weah, who chaired the National Security Council at the time of the alleged acts. Cllr. Johnson contended that national security expenditures are classified and should not be subjected to public scrutiny, suggesting that revealing how such funds were spent could expose sensitive information. Former Supreme Court Justice M. Wilkins Wright, also appearing for the defense, argued that oversight of such spending rests with the General Auditing Commission rather than the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission.
The prosecution, led by Montserrado County Attorney Cllr. Richard J. Scott Jr. and the Office of the Solicitor General, rejected these immunity claims. Citing the precedent set in the Brownie Samukai case, prosecutors argued that subordinates are not obligated to carry out illegal orders from their superiors. They maintained that the funds at issue were not used for national security purposes but were instead allegedly transferred through the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA) and distributed among the accused.
The case centers on allegations that Tweah, Tuan, Karmoh, former FIA Director Stanley S. Ford, and former FIA Controller D. Moses P. Cooper authorized the transfer of more than L$1.05 billion and US$500,000 from the Central Bank of Liberia to FIA operational accounts. Prosecutors allege these funds remain unaccounted for. This Supreme Court ruling follows an earlier decision by Criminal Court ‘C’ Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie, who denied a defense motion to dismiss on similar grounds. With the Supreme Court now lifting the temporary stay on proceedings, the trial court is cleared to resume jurisdiction and move forward with the case.
Comments are closed.