Temple of Justice, Monrovia – Defense lawyers in the Capitol Building arson case have signaled their intent to file a motion for discovery if Monrovia City Court rules today against former House Speaker J. Fonati Koffa and three co-defendants during the ongoing preliminary examination.
The case, which stems from a suspected arson attack on the Capitol Building, involves Koffa, Rep. Abu B. Kamara, Rep. Jacob C. Debee, and Rep. Dixon W. Seboe, all charged with multiple crimes including arson, criminal facilitation, criminal solicitation, criminal conspiracy, and attempted murder.
Under Chapter 12, Section 12.3 of Liberia’s Criminal Procedure Law, when a defendant requests a preliminary examination, the magistrate must hear the evidence within a reasonable time, and all witnesses must be examined in the presence of the defendant. The law also requires that the defendant be provided a copy of the complaint ahead of the hearing and that evidence be openly reviewed.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, defense counsel led by Cllr. Wilkins Michael Wright filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained through a writ of search and seizure executed on the mobile phones of defendants Thomas Etheridge and Eric Susay. The defense argued that the evidence gathered does not implicate Koffa and his co-defendants and, therefore, lacks the merit to sustain probable cause.
They further urged the court to discharge the four lawmakers from answering to further charges, citing insufficient linkage between them and the alleged crime.
However, state prosecutors opposed the motion, referencing the landmark Walker v. Morris, 15 LLR, which establishes that evidence admitted during preliminary hearings must be reviewed by a jury at trial. Prosecutors argued that the defense’s failure to respond with testimony forfeited certain rights and amounted to a waiver of those claims.
In his ruling, Magistrate Ben L. Barco denied the defense motion to suppress, stating that the evidence had already been admitted and passed the test of admissibility. Barco affirmed that the evidence had been testified to, identified, and confirmed, making it impossible for the court to now reverse its admissibility.
He further referenced a Supreme Court ruling during the preliminary examination of Etheridge and Susay in late December 2024 and early January 2025, which upheld similar evidence as credible and legally admissible.
Magistrate Barco announced that a final ruling on the preliminary examination hearing would be delivered on Friday, June 13, 2025.
Should the court decide to forward the case to Criminal Court ‘A’, the presiding judge would be expected to order the prosecution to submit all evidence against the defendants for trial.
Meanwhile, defense attorneys are expected to respond with a formal motion for discovery—should the court’s ruling go against their clients—seeking full disclosure of all materials the prosecution intends to rely upon at trial.
Discussion about this post