Published: February 25, 2026
MONROVIA — Criminal Court ‘C’ on Tuesday resumed jurisdiction over the prosecution of former Finance and Development Planning Minister Samuel D. Tweah and four other senior officials, after the Supreme Court of Liberia rejected their claims of constitutional immunity and ordered the case returned to the trial court.
The development followed the reading of the Supreme Court’s mandate at the Temple of Justice on Feb. 24, effectively lifting a stay that had stalled proceedings while the high court reviewed a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by the defense.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | Facebook
With the mandate entered into the record, Judge Osuman Fekia declared that Criminal Court “C” is now fully seized of the matter and will proceed in accordance with law.
Tweah appeared in court alongside his co-defendants: former Acting Justice Minister Cllr. Nyanti Tuan, former National Security Adviser, Jefferson Karmoh, former Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA) Director Stanley S. Ford, and former FIA Comptroller D. Moses P. Cooper.
They face multiple charges, including economic sabotage, theft of property, money laundering, criminal facilitation and conspiracy, stemming from the alleged misapplication of US$6.2 million in public funds.
Supreme Court Rejects Immunity Argument
At the center of the months-long legal dispute was whether the defendants, as members of the National Security Council (NSC), were shielded from prosecution under Article 61 of the Constitution and national security statutes.
In a Dec. 18, 2025 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected that argument in sweeping terms.
The majority bench held that Article 61 grants personal immunity only to a sitting president for official acts performed during tenure and does not extend to cabinet ministers, advisers or other executive officials.
“When a statute specifies certain persons as beneficiaries, any other person claiming benefits under said statute must be expressly co-opted,” the court ruled, emphasizing that the law establishing the National Security Council clearly identifies who qualifies for statutory protections.
The justices further clarified that neither national security laws nor executive authority provide blanket protection against criminal accountability for financial transactions.
The petition for a writ of prohibition was denied, the alternative writ quashed and the matter remanded to Criminal Court “C” to resume proceedings. Costs were disallowed.
Associate Justice Jamesetta Howard Wolokolie recused herself due to family ties to one of the parties, while Justice Ceaineh D. Clinton Johnson also recused herself, having earlier issued the writ in the case.
Defense Warned of “Dangerous Precedent”
During oral arguments before the Supreme Court, defense counsel led by Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson contended that prosecuting Tweah and the other defendants would effectively amount to prosecuting former President George M. Weah, who chaired the NSC.
Johnson argued that expenditures tied to national security are inherently classified and that compelling disclosure could expose sensitive state information. He cited Articles 50 and 61 of the Constitution and provisions of the National Security Agency Act, asserting that accountability for such spending lies with the General Auditing Commission and should require presidential authorization.
Former Associate Justice M. Wilkins Wright, also appearing for the defense, advanced a similar position, arguing that actions undertaken within the NSC framework should not be subjected to ordinary criminal process.
Prosecution: “No One Above the Law”
State prosecutors rejected those arguments, maintaining that the case concerns financial accountability — not classified security operations.
Montserrado County Attorney Cllr. Richard J. Scott Jr. and lawyers from the Solicitor General’s office argued that the funds were not expended on legitimate national security activities but instead passed through FIA accounts and were allegedly disbursed among the accused.
They drew parallels to the Brownie Samukai case, in which the Supreme Court held that subordinates are not legally obligated to execute unlawful directives from superiors.
“This case has nothing to do with national security,” prosecutors argued, urging the court to allow the trial to proceed.
Allegations at the Core
According to the indictment, Tweah and his co-defendants authorized the transfer of more than L$1.05 billion and US$500,000 from the Central Bank of Liberia to operational accounts of the Financial Intelligence Agency. Prosecutors allege the funds remain unaccounted for and were disbursed in violation of Liberia’s public financial management framework.
Defense lawyers have consistently maintained that the transfers were lawful and executed in furtherance of national security operations during the previous administration.
Criminal Court “C” Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie had earlier denied a motion to dismiss, ruling that national security provisions do not grant blanket immunity from financial accountability and that Article 61 applies solely to the president.
The Supreme Court subsequently stayed the proceedings pending its review. With its denial of the writ of prohibition, that stay has now been lifted.
Discussion about this post