Published: June 22, 2026
Leaks, Closed-Door Deliberations and the Questions Surrounding Liberia’s Biggest Drug Investigation
MONROVIA – The House of Representatives’ decision to enter executive session on Tuesday, June 16, 2026, during the appearance of Justice Minister and Attorney General Cllr. Oswald Tweh, Liberia Drug Enforcement Agency (LDEA) officials, Roberts International Airport authorities and Liberia Revenue Authority Customs officials was neither spontaneous nor without justification.
It was prompted by the government’s own acknowledgment that aspects of the ongoing investigation into the multi-million-dollar cocaine seizure involved sensitive intelligence obtained through international cooperation.
Addressing lawmakers in open session, Justice Minister Tweh cautioned against the public disclosure of operational details.
“Due to our own limited capacity, we have invited our partners and friends to help us exchange information, and it would set a bad precedent to expose some of the information we receive.”
He argued that revealing such information could undermine future intelligence-sharing arrangements with international partners and potentially compromise the integrity of the investigation.
As his presentation drew to a close, the Attorney General made another important statement.
“Mr. Speaker, Co-Presiding, distinguished Honorable members of the House, by your wisdom if you want an in camera setting we can do that in detail, but to disclose every information will be detrimental to the investigation.”
Before he could continue, Speaker Richard Nagbe Koon struck the gavel and directed the House into executive session.
Under the House’s Standing Rules, executive sessions are conducted behind closed doors. Journalists, members of the public and other non-legislators are required to leave the chamber, and lawmakers are prohibited from publicly disclosing what transpires during those deliberations. Violations are subject to disciplinary sanctions.
The rationale was straightforward: lawmakers would receive information considered too sensitive for public disclosure.
Yet what has happened since raises questions that deserve answers.
Earlier in the same hearing, LDEA Officer-in-Charge Fitzgerald Biago confirmed to lawmakers that investigators had secured CCTV footage from Roberts International Airport as part of the investigation.
That confirmation carried significance. CCTV evidence collected during an active criminal investigation is ordinarily treated as sensitive material because it may form part of the prosecution’s case or ongoing investigative work.
Despite repeated assurances from government officials that details of the investigation would not be publicly disclosed to protect its integrity, portions of what appear to be investigative findings—and even airport surveillance footage—have since surfaced in the media.
This apparent contradiction deserves scrutiny.
If investigators informed lawmakers that releasing sensitive information would jeopardize the investigation, how then did information of such apparent sensitivity find its way into the public domain?
Who authorized the release?
Who had lawful access to the surveillance footage?
Were established evidence-handling protocols followed?
Or has someone within the investigative chain breached those protocols?
Obtaining CCTV footage from one of the country’s most sensitive security facilities is not a routine exercise. Such material is typically accessible only to a limited number of authorized officials involved in the investigation or responsible for airport security.
That reality naturally raises legitimate public-interest questions about the chain of custody and the security of investigative evidence.
It is equally noteworthy that several reports published by different media outlets have contained strikingly similar narratives and details, many closely resembling information previously presented by the Justice Minister during his press briefing.
Similarity alone is not proof of wrongdoing. Journalists often rely on common official sources, and multiple news organizations can independently report the same facts. That, by itself, should not be viewed as evidence of collusion or misconduct.
However, if confidential investigative materials—or evidence protected during an active criminal investigation—have indeed been selectively disclosed, then determining how those disclosures occurred becomes an issue of institutional accountability rather than media conduct.
The focus, therefore, should not primarily be on the news organizations that published the information. Their role is to report information they lawfully obtain.
The more pressing question is whether public officials entrusted with confidential evidence have upheld their legal and ethical obligations.
Government cannot simultaneously insist that disclosure would endanger an investigation while confidential investigative materials continue to emerge in the public sphere.
If the information is genuinely too sensitive for lawmakers to discuss outside an executive session, then it should be equally protected within the investigative institutions charged with safeguarding it.
Public confidence in this investigation depends not only on identifying those responsible for trafficking narcotics but also on ensuring that the investigative process itself remains credible, secure and free from unauthorized disclosures.
If there has been no leak, authorities should explain how these materials entered the public domain.
If there has been a leak, the source should be identified and held accountable.
Transparency and confidentiality are not mutually exclusive. Both are essential to maintaining public trust and preserving the integrity of criminal investigations.
In this case, the evidence suggests that one investigation may require another.
Perhaps, before asking who trafficked the drugs, Liberia must also ask a different question:
Who leaked the investigation?
Discussion about this post