Published: September 8, 2025
MONROVIA — Defense lawyers in one of Liberia’s most closely-watched cases, the Capitol arson trial, have challenged the government’s evidence, contending that prosecutors used illegal search warrants, flawed investigative methods, and even torture to build their case.
On Tuesday, September 2, inside Criminal Court ‘A’ at the Temple of Justice, defense attorneys representing more than a dozen defendants accused of arson, conspiracy and attempted murder asked Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie to suppress “all of the Prosecution’s discovery evidence” on statutory and constitutional grounds.
To “suppress evidence” is to ask the court to exclude certain materials from being presented at trial on the grounds that they were improperly obtained. In Liberian law, this stems from Chapter 11 of the Criminal Procedure Law and Article 21(b) of the Constitution, which protects individuals from unlawful searches and seizures. If the judge grants suppression, the jury would never see or hear the contested evidence.
“This Court is most respectfully requested to suppress all of the evidence that grew out of the illegal conduct,” the defense declared, insisting that “when evidence is illegally obtained in a criminal trial for the purpose of convicting a Defendant, that action is both criminal and illegal.”
The motion, filed after a week of discovery review, threatens to undercut the foundation of the state’s case, which relies heavily on phone data, GPS logs, forensic reports, and materials seized through search warrants obtained in late 2024 and early 2025.
The Defense Argument
The defense argues that the search and seizure process used by prosecutors to secure digital and physical evidence is flawed.
According to the defense, the first application for a warrant, filed by Montserrado County Attorney Richard Scott on December 18, 2024, was “defective” because it failed to meet basic statutory requirements.
“The application failed to state the name of the items to be searched and seized,” defense lawyers wrote. “It failed to describe the evidence to be seized or searched. It failed to state the location where the items to be seized and searched were in order to establish jurisdiction of the Court issuing the Writ of Search and Seizure.”
They argued further that the December filing “failed in substance to establish probable cause” and instead appeared to be a request for the court to allow police “to conduct a formal criminal investigation,” which, they said, is not the purpose of a search warrant.
A second application on January 9, 2025, also signed by Scott, was filed to correct those errors. But the defense maintains that it, too, “failed to meet the statutory requirement,” pointing out that it improperly asked the Monrovia City Court to issue a writ of search and seizure not against the property owners, but against the National Security Agency itself, effectively giving the NSA authority to investigate a criminal matter.
“This fundamental error undermines the validity of the discovery evidence,” the lawyers said, invoking the legal doctrine of the “poisonous tree,” which excludes evidence obtained through unlawful means.
NSA’s Role Under Fire
The defense motion also zeroes in on the involvement of the National Security Agency, which it claims exceeded its mandate by conducting phone extractions, surveillance, and evidence analysis.
“The Act creating the National Security Agency, specifically the National Security Reform and Intelligence Act of 2011, does not mandate the NSA to investigate Arson cases or Criminal Cases,” the lawyers argued. “When NSA as in the instant case conducts an Arson investigation, an authority that is not given to NSA by law, any product of that evidence or those evidence should be suppressed by law.”
To drive the point home, defense lawyers cited the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Cece Natif Gbaylay v. Republic of Liberia, where Justice Kabineh Janneh ruled that NSA criminal investigations carried out without statutory authority are ultra vires — beyond the agency’s powers.
They asked Judge Willie to “take Judicial Notice that the very Supreme Court has said that NSA cannot get involved in Criminal Investigation because it is a clandestine institution … organized and established by law to conduct espionage, counter-intelligence, treason investigation and other National Security issues, not criminal investigation.”
Allegations of Torture
In one of the most disturbing portions of their submission, the defense alleged that statements obtained from defendants were the product of torture and inhumane treatment at the NSA headquarters.
“Some were sodomized, tortured to obtain evidence,” the lawyers told the court. “Many of them were stripped butt naked while making the statements at the NSA and at the same time handcuffed in addition to being waterboarded.”
They even named the vehicle and official allegedly involved in transporting defendants for interrogation: “The car in question that took the Defendants away is a white pickup truck, marked with license plate number A613015, and the driver … is named as Louis Jayjay, Assistant NSA Director for Cyber Security.”
Defense counsel insisted that any statements or confessions extracted under such conditions are “totally uncivilized and barbaric” and must be excluded.
Chain of Custody and Questionable Forensics
Beyond warrant defects and alleged torture, the defense also attacked the integrity of the evidence chain and expert reports used by the prosecution.
They said the so-called forensic analysis conducted by the Liberia Petroleum Refinery Company (LPRC) on a “clora bottle” allegedly linked to the arson was inadmissible because the agency has no statutory authority to conduct criminal forensic investigations.
“The LPRC lacks the statutory authority to conduct a forensic arson investigation. It is not an expert witness and cannot be,” the lawyers said.
They further pointed out that the LPRC memorandum lacked key hallmarks of an expert report, including methodology, qualifications, and proper chain of custody for the bottle itself.
“The bottle failed to state where it was seen, where it was collected, who collected the bottle and preserved it, the date and time it was collected, who all came in possession of the said bottle to maintain the integrity of the evidence,” they argued.
Privacy and Call Logs
Another major target of the defense submission is the government’s reliance on phone records and call logs.
The lawyers say prosecutors never obtained a subpoena duces tecum — the proper court order required to compel telecommunication companies to release call records.
“In the instance case, there is no evidence of how Liberia National Police under the supervision of its Director went into the cell phone numbers and the call logs of the Defendants,” the defense stated. “This action is a constitutional breach as well as statutory.”
They warned that allowing such evidence would set a dangerous precedent of “clandestine operations” and “the habit of intruding in the cell phone data of people without authorization of Court.”
Discussion about this post