Published: December 3, 2025
Temple of Justice, Monrovia — Criminal Court ‘A’ Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie on Tuesday, December 2, 2025, ordered the removal of a juror in the high-profile Capitol Building arson case after determining that she lied under oath about not knowing any of the defendants, despite serving as a coordinator in the opposition Congress for Democratic Change (CDC).
The decision followed a Bill of Information filed by state prosecutors, who argued that the juror, identified as J30-9550, held a senior political role within the CDC’s District 13 structure and therefore could not be expected to remain impartial. Prosecutors said allowing such an influential political actor to sit on the panel “would compromise the integrity of the trial” and undermine public confidence in the verdict.
Defense Pushes Back
Defense lawyer Cllr. Jonathan Massaquoi strongly objected to the prosecution’s request, arguing that removing the juror would violate her constitutional rights. He accused the state of filing repetitive motions intended to delay the trial and claimed the prosecution ultimately wanted the entire jury disbanded.
“It is a violation of the Liberian Constitution that a citizen should be deprived of providing service to the Republic simply because they belong to a political party,” Massaquoi told the court. He argued that concerns about the juror’s fairness should have been raised earlier through a peremptory challenge and said the photographic evidence attached to the prosecution’s filing was “non-scientific and unreliable.”
Judge Questions Juror, Confirms Political Role
After hearing legal arguments, Judge Willie questioned the juror directly under oath. She admitted that she is not just a CDC member but the party’s District 13 coordinator, contradicting her earlier claim during jury vetting that she had no political involvement that could affect her impartiality.
Judge Willie said the legal issues before him required determining whether either side could still challenge a juror at this stage, whether such a challenge would violate the juror’s constitutional rights, and whether his prior decision in a similar case should guide his ruling.
Court’s Legal Determination
Judge Willie ruled that a challenge to a juror’s honesty may be made at any time before evidence is presented. He emphasized that the reading of an indictment is not considered evidence but merely an accusation formally placed before the defendants and the jury.
Because the trial had not yet entered the evidentiary phase, he found that the prosecution retained the legal right to raise concerns.
On the question of constitutional rights, the judge said the challenge did not amount to discrimination based on political affiliation. Instead, it stemmed from the juror’s false statement under oath during voir dire.
“The challenge is grounded in dishonesty,” Judge Willie ruled. “The juror admitted she holds a leadership position within a political party. Such a role creates a propensity for bias in a case involving defendants connected to that party.”
He stressed that jurors have a duty to disclose any information that could affect their impartiality and that withholding such information affects the fairness of the trial.
Addressing whether his earlier ruling involving juror J30-9819 applied, the judge said it did not. In that matter, the prosecution relied solely on a small photograph and failed to prove any political link or connection to the defendants. In contrast, juror J30-9550 openly confirmed her political leadership role.
“In the previous case, there was no evidence the juror knew the defendants,” he said. “Here, the juror herself admitted under oath to holding an influential CDC position.”
Juror Removed; Defense Excepts
Based on those findings, Judge Willie ordered juror J30-9550 removed from the panel and directed the clerk to summon a replacement using the same procedure as before.
“In the mind of this court, she would be prone to bias,” he said. “Therefore, juror J30-9550 is hereby ejected from the panel.”
Defense lawyers immediately took exception, arguing that no new juror should be selected and that one of the existing alternates should replace the removed juror. The judge did not immediately resolve that objection.
The Capitol arson case, involving former Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, multiple sitting lawmakers, and other co-defendants, is expected to continue on Wednesday with further pretrial matters.
Discussion about this post