Published: December 4, 2025
Temple of Justice, Monrovia — Defense lawyers representing former Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, Rep. Abu B. Kamara, Rep. Dixon Seboe and Jacob Debee on Wednesday, December 3, 2025, moved to block the government from introducing police statements they say were obtained through torture, coercion and other unconstitutional means.
The objection was raised just as prosecutors attempted to introduce the statements during the testimony of their first witness, Officer Rafell Wilson of the Liberia National Police Crime Services Division, who led portions of the initial investigation into the December 18, 2024, burning of the Capitol Building.
Defense lawyers argued that the statements, which prosecutors say were made by the defendants during police interrogation, were not voluntarily given and therefore violate Articles 20 and 21(a) of the 1986 Constitution, which prohibit forced confessions, torture, and inhumane treatment.
Defense: Statements Were Forced and Improperly Signed
According to the defense, several defendants were allegedly tortured, sodomized and compelled to sign statements written by police officers without the presence of counsel. They further argued that some statements were attributed to individuals not currently on trial, while others contained misspelled names and signatures allegedly obtained under duress.
“These statements cannot be allowed into evidence. They were not written or dictated by our clients, and were obtained in violation of constitutional protections,” one defense lawyer told the court. The team asked Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie to strike all police statements linked to the indictment.
Claims Already Decided by Supreme Court
Prosecutors pushed back sharply, calling the defense claims “a recycling of arguments already resolved by both the lower court and the Supreme Court.”
They pointed out that the question of torture had previously been presented before Criminal Court A and later before a Justice in Chambers, who declined to issue a writ of certiorari. According to the state, the defense is attempting to relitigate an issue that has already been adjudicated.
Prosecution also insisted the defense objection was premature, arguing that evidence cannot be challenged until it has been formally marked for identification. Citing Chapter 17.2 of the Criminal Procedure Law, they maintained the statements must first be identified by the witness before the court can determine admissibility.
County Attorney Richard Scott Jr. told the court that Officer Wilson had only begun identifying the documents and that the defense could not “object to what has not yet been introduced.”
Witness Describes Roles in Alleged Capitol Attack
Before the objection, Officer Wilson delivered a PowerPoint presentation and played audio recordings summarizing the investigative findings. He outlined the alleged roles of each defendant in the burning of the Capitol Building, which prosecutors say was a coordinated plot involving arson, conspiracy and endangerment.
When asked by prosecutors if he could identify the defendants’ statements from the police investigation, Wilson said yes — a confirmation that immediately triggered the defense objection.
Judge Issues Split Ruling on Defense Motion
In a carefully worded ruling, Judge Willie partially granted and partially denied the defense objection.
He granted the request to strike all statements belonging to individuals not currently on trial, saying those documents have no bearing on the proceedings and cannot be used as evidence.
However, he denied the request to exclude the statements of defendants Thomas Etheridge, Kivi Bah, Eric Susay and Stephen Broh, ruling that the defense’s allegations do not meet the legal standard required to disallow their statements entirely.
Judge Willie referenced earlier medical examinations conducted by AMI Expeditionary Health Care. While a physician confirmed injuries consistent with possible mistreatment, the report did not specify dates or times of the alleged abuse. He also noted that the defendants had declined the sodomy component of the examination and told the doctor they had not been sexually assaulted.
The judge emphasized that lawyers represented the defendants during the investigative phase. If torture had occurred, he said, “they could have informed their counsel and refused to sign any statement.”
Regarding the defense complaint about discovery, Judge Willie ordered prosecutors to turn over all remaining evidence in their possession before the trial continues.
The testimony of prosecution witness Officer Rafell Wilson will continue on Tuesday, December 9, after which the defense will be given the opportunity for cross-examination.
Discussion about this post