Published: December 22, 2025
MONROVIA — Liberia’s Supreme Court has taken the highly unusual step of reopening a case it ruled on less than 24 hours earlier, after defense lawyers for former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah Jr. alerted the justices to what they called a “grave and material error” at the heart of the Court’s decision.
The reversal was approved Friday by Associate Justice Yussif Kaba. The case, which concerns whether former senior officials of the Weah administration can be criminally prosecuted for actions they argue were carried out under national-security authority, now returns to the Supreme Court for re-argument.
Last Thursday, the Bench unanimous gave an opinion by a three-justice quorum denying the ex-officials’ petition for a writ of prohibition and ordering their trial at Criminal Court ‘C’ to resume. In that ruling, the Court concluded that Tweah, and by extension all finance ministers, were not members of the National Security Council (NSC) under the National Security Reform and Intelligence Act of 2011, and therefore could not claim national-security protection.
Defense lawyers immediately countered that the Court had misread the law. Section 3(b) of the 2011 Act explicitly names the Minister of Finance as a statutory member of the NSC, a provision the Court’s opinion appeared to omit entirely.
The case has been fraught since its earliest stages, beginning with contested bond proceedings, the removal of the initial trial judge, and a bitter fight over whether Criminal Court ‘C’ even has subject-matter jurisdiction over acts tied to national security. A prior petition in March sent the matter to the Supreme Court, where two justices abruptly recused themselves on the day of argument in November, leaving only three justices, the minimum required, to hear the petition.
In their re-argument filing, defense lawyers insist the Court’s interpretation of the NSRI Act not only contradicts the statutory text but threatens Liberia’s national-security architecture. They argue that the Financial Intelligence Agency, which monitors money laundering and terror financing, is also protected under Section 2(b) of the Act, and that allowing the criminal trial to proceed would force disclosure of sensitive intelligence materials in violation of both statute and constitutional separation of powers. They further maintain that an Acting Minister of Justice legally exercises full ministerial authority, including NSC membership when designated by the President, and that the Court’s earlier ruling improperly second-guessed executive prerogative.
The petition also challenges the Court’s approval of ex parte subpoenas for classified materials, calling it an intrusion into the President’s exclusive domain over national-security information and a departure from established democratic norms.
With re-argument granted, the December 18 ruling is effectively paused, and no mandate will be sent to the lower court until the Supreme Court issues a new decision. The justices are expected to set a hearing date in the coming days.
Discussion about this post