Published: December 1, 2025
MONROVIA — A lawyer for the defense in the Capitol arson trial sharply accused state prosecutors on Monday of trying to “stack the jury with UP people,” arguing that the government’s move to remove a seated juror is politically tainted and legally improper.
The defense lawyer said it was “wrong for them to even name her publicly,” insisting that Juror Antoinette Mulbah’s residence in District 13 has no relevance to the case because no lawmaker from that district is on trial. He argued that the prosecution’s challenge is built on political assumptions rather than any demonstrated bias.
The Ministry of Justice filed a motion before Criminal Court ‘A’ seeking to remove Mulbah—juror number J30-9550—from the panel hearing the high-profile case involving former Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, Representatives Dixon Seboe and Abu Kamara, and other co-defendants charged with arson, attempted murder, criminal conspiracy, and related offenses.
In its filing, the prosecution alleged that Juror Mulbah lied under oath during voir dire, claiming not to know or have any dealings with any of the defendants. Prosecutors described her as a “key stalwart” of the Congress for Democratic Change and chairwoman of District 13, arguing that it is unlikely for someone in that position not to be familiar with senior figures of a major political party, including the defendants. They attached photographs marked as Exhibit “MM1 in bulk,” which they said show Mulbah receiving birthday greetings as a CDC coordinator and interacting with political figures tied to the case. According to the state, a false answer to a material question threatens the prosecution’s constitutional right to an impartial jury and makes her unfit to remain on the panel.
The lawyer for the defense rejected the government’s assertions as speculative and politically motivated. He accused prosecutors of trying to tilt the jury in their favor by targeting a citizen whose political affiliation alone does not prove bias. “This is an attempt to configure the jury to their advantage,” he said, warning that such tactics undermine confidence in the process.
The motion relies on Chapter 19, Subsection 19.3(3) of the Criminal Procedure Law, which allows a juror to be challenged for disqualification, interest or bias even after being sworn, provided no evidence has been presented. Prosecutors argued that since the trial has not yet reached the evidentiary phase, the objection is timely. They cited several Supreme Court precedents—among them Bestman v. Lewis and Sackor v. Republic—to emphasize the judiciary’s longstanding standard that the criminal atmosphere must exhibit complete fairness to both sides and that jurors must be drawn from an impartial pool.
In the motion’s conclusion, the Ministry of Justice asked Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie to remove Juror Antoinette Mulbah from the panel, direct the National Jury Management Office to immediately provide a replacement, and grant any additional relief considered just and equitable.
Discussion about this post