Published: February 18, 2025
Temple of Justice, Monrovia – Defense lawyers representing Thomas Etheridge and Eric Susay have petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari following the denial of their motion to suppress evidence and return property at Criminal Court ‘A’. The motion was rejected by Resident Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie, prompting the legal team to escalate the matter to the nation’s highest court.
A writ of certiorari seeks a review of a lower court’s decision by a superior court. The dispute originates from a ruling at the Monrovia City Court, where Magistrate Ben L. Barco, on February 6, 2025, denied the defense’s motion on the grounds that the evidence in question was presented in their presence, granting them ample opportunity to challenge it within the legal timeframe.
Criminal Court ‘A’ upheld the magistrate’s ruling, arguing that the defense failed to act timely and appropriately. The court stated that it could not grant relief for a party’s failure to take necessary steps within the due process period.
Led by Cllr. M. Wilkins Wright, Cllr. Jonathan Massaquoi, and Elisha J. Forkeyor, the defense contends that their clients’ rights were violated and that key evidence should be suppressed. They argue that the prosecution unlawfully seized property and coerced confessions from the accused.
The motion highlights alleged constitutional violations, including illegal detention, torture, and coerced confessions. It states that Thomas Etheridge was detained at the National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters, where he was subjected to six hours of interrogation, beaten with a water bottle, and threatened with being placed in a snake pit or sexually assaulted. Similarly, co-defendant Eric Susay was allegedly detained beyond the statutory 48-hour period, beaten, and subjected to inhumane treatment.
The defense further asserts that the search and seizure of Etheridge’s mobile phone occurred 23 days before a legal warrant was obtained, violating his right to privacy. They claim the NSA overstepped its jurisdiction under the 2011 NSA Act, which limits its authority to matters of national security, not criminal investigations.
In response, the prosecution, led by Cllr. Richard Scott Jr., dismissed the defense’s motion as repetitive and lacking merit. Prosecutors argued that the search and seizure were conducted lawfully and that the court should take judicial notice of the records. They urged the court to deny and dismiss the motion in its entirety.
Discussion about this post