MONROVIA, Liberia – Defense lawyers on Wednesday tore into the government’s case against former Speaker J. Fonati Koffa and three lawmakers, slamming social media-sourced evidence as “contaminated” and legally worthless, just as the prosecution rested with both oral and documentary submissions in the Capitol arson hearing.
Appearing before Magistrate L. Ben Barco at the Monrovia City Court, defense counsel Cllr. Jonathan Massaquoi argued that the Liberia National Police’s reliance on vague “open-source” material pulled from unspecified social media platforms falls far below the legal threshold for admissible evidence.
“Social media is a jungle of unverifiable content,” Massaquoi told the court. “The government cannot walk into this courtroom with unsourced clips and expect a court of law to treat it as credible.”
The prosecution’s second witness, Inspector Rafell A. Wilson, chief investigator at the Crime Services Division, testified that the recordings used to link Koffa and fellow lawmakers Abu Bana Kamara, Jacob Debee, and Dixon Seboe to the December 18, 2024, Capitol Building fire were retrieved from social media. But when pressed to identify the exact platforms—whether Facebook, WhatsApp, Telegram, or X—he failed to provide clarity.
“The Plot Was Finalized”
Under intense cross-examination, Wilson declared that the accused “finalized their discussion to burn the joint chambers of the Capitol Building on December 18,” a key claim tying the defendants directly to the arson.
But the defense questioned the thoroughness of that conclusion. Cllr. M. Wilkins Wright asked Wilson if police had obtained and examined the phones of the four lawmakers to verify direct communication. Wilson replied, “Nowhere in my testimony did I say I had possession of the four defendants’ phones.”
He later claimed the investigation relied on data from co-defendant Patrick Saah Ali and a separate phone owned by Thomas Ethridge. “Their connection is through conspiracy,” Wilson asserted. “I also spoke about communication between Patrick Saah Ali and Rep. Seboe.”
When asked whether the prosecution’s information was sourced entirely from Patrick Ali, Wilson said it also came from “open sources”—again without naming a specific platform.
Phones Unexamined, Chairs Unexplained
Cllr. Wright also questioned Wilson on whether police investigated the removal of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker’s chairs from the joint chambers—items that were reportedly saved from the fire. The defense sought to know who removed them, but state prosecutors objected, and Magistrate Barco sustained the objection, blocking the question.
The defense further pressed the witness on so-called “Plan A” and “Plan B”—alleged conspiracy terms used by the accused. Wilson said “Plan B” referred to “something heavy to be done” but failed to name all participants or describe specific actions. He admitted there was no detailed documentation of either plan in his testimony.
Recordings Played, but Doubts Remain
Despite defense objections, the court allowed the audio recordings to be played. In one clip, voices resembling Koffa and Kamara discussed interactions with the president. In another, a voice believed to be Rep. Seboe’s instructed someone named Ali not to use his personal number, adding, “You know who you’re talking to… I know you won’t be on social media.”
Still, the defense dismissed the recordings as inconclusive and lacking a proper chain of custody.
“This isn’t evidence—it’s guesswork based on unverified, unattributed digital noise,” Massaquoi argued. “If this is the government’s best case, it’s built on sand.”
No Defense Testimony, Final Arguments Ahead
With the prosecution resting its case, the defense opted not to call witnesses or present testimony. Magistrate Barco has scheduled final arguments for Thursday, June 12, 2025, after which the court will decide whether the case proceeds to trial.
Koffa, Kamara, Seboe, and Debee face charges including arson, criminal conspiracy, attempted murder, facilitation, and solicitation. All have pleaded not guilty, claiming the charges are politically motivated and unsupported by credible evidence.
Discussion about this post