Published: December 10, 2025
Temple of Justice, Monrovia — Defense lawyers representing former House Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, three sitting lawmakers, and several co-defendants in the Capitol Building arson trial on Tuesday intensified their attack on the prosecution’s case, pointing to what they described as major inconsistencies, inaudible recordings, and a failure to properly link key evidence to the accused.
The latest challenge arose after prosecutors presented physical exhibits that defense lawyers say contradict earlier testimony given at the Monrovia City Court. According to the defense, the state previously told the magisterial court that the fire at the Capitol was allegedly ignited using a large matchbox—but the item produced in Criminal Court A on Tuesday was a small matchbox. They also argued that prosecutors had earlier claimed the defendants used a mayonnaise jar as part of the arson attempt, but no such jar was presented to the Circuit Court.
“These inconsistencies go to the heart of credibility and reliability,” one defense lawyer told the court, arguing that the prosecution was “fumbling” and unable to maintain a coherent narrative.
Defense Also Challenges Audio Evidence, Calls It ‘Artificial Intelligence’
The complaints about physical evidence added to an already heated dispute over audio recordings the prosecution wanted to play in court. The clips were allegedly taken from the cellphone of defendant Thomas Etheridge by an unnamed National Security Agency (NSA) technician.
Defense lawyers described the recordings as manipulated, inaudible, and potentially AI-generated. They argued that the witness presented, Officer Rafell Wilson of the Liberia National Police, could not authenticate the digital files because he was not the one who extracted them.
They argued that only the NSA agent known as “JJ,” who handled the extraction and testified at the preliminary hearing in June, could speak to their origin and integrity.
Judge Willie Rules on Admissibility Questions
Criminal Court ‘A’ Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie said the controversy required the court to examine three issues: how hearsay rules apply to evidence from prior proceedings, the limited purpose of preliminary examinations, and whether the prosecution is required to bring back JJ simply because he testified at the magisterial level.
On hearsay, Judge Willie noted that Liberia’s Civil Procedure Law provides exceptions that allow certain forms of secondary testimony.
He underscored that a preliminary examination is designed only to establish probable cause—not to bind the Circuit Court to specific witnesses or testimony. Citing Section 12.1 of the Criminal Procedure Law, he explained that a magistrate court may find probable cause, but a grand jury may still determine that evidence is insufficient for indictment.
As for compelling JJ to testify, the judge ruled that the Circuit Court cannot force the prosecution to bring back a witness solely because he appeared during a preliminary phase.
He therefore denied the defense’s request to exclude the audio evidence. The defense took exception.
Defense Raises Chain-of-Custody Concerns
Immediately after the ruling, Cllr. Arthur Johnson raised yet another objection, arguing that the audio files lacked a verifiable chain of custody and appeared “tampered with.” He said the recordings must be transcribed and reviewed by a certified audio forensics expert before being admitted.
Johnson emphasized that Officer Wilson is an investigator, not a technician or voice-analysis specialist, and cannot independently verify whether the recordings are authentic or manipulated. He cited Supreme Court precedent, including Tubman v. Republic, to support his objection.
Judge Willie again overruled the challenge, reaffirming his earlier decision to allow the audio evidence.
Prosecution Struggles to Maintain Consistency
Despite the defense objections, Officer Wilson continued his testimony, telling the court that the intelligence collected from Etheridge’s phone came through NSA assistance.
But the defense pressed on, highlighting what they called an emerging pattern of prosecutorial inconsistency:
- Audio recordings: contested as inaudible, unauthenticated, and possibly altered.
- Matchbox: alleged mismatch between the large matchbox described at City Court and the small one presented in Criminal Court ‘A’.
- Mayonnaise jar: previously cited at the magisterial level but not produced as evidence at the Circuit Court.
Officer Wilson is expected to return to the stand for cross-examination.
Discussion about this post