—- As Prosecution Struggle to link Defendants to Capitol fire.
IPNEWS: Prosecution’s effort to firmly link the defendants to the December 2024 arson attack on the Capitol Building came under renewed scrutiny on Wednesday, after its first witness disclosed that investigators never carried out forensic fingerprint testing on the very items allegedly used to ignite the blaze.
Testifying in Criminal Court “A,” Liberia National Police (LNP) investigator Rafael Wilson acknowledged under cross-examination that neither the recovered Clorox bottle nor the matchbox was subjected to scientific fingerprint analysis.
The disclosure has intensified concerns about the thoroughness of the investigation in one of Liberia’s most politically sensitive trials.
No Forensic Prints on Core Exhibits Under questioning from defense counsel, Wilson told the court that LNP forensic personnel had indicated the plastic Clorox bottle could not retain usable fingerprints.
“The Clorox bottle and matchbox have raw surfaces. We could not conduct fingerprint testing.
The forensic technician told us it was impossible to extract prints from that type of material,” Wilson testified.
His admission prompted vigorous challenges from the defense, which argued that investigators failed to observe basic evidentiary standards required to connect any suspect to the physical exhibits in court.
Defense lawyers maintained that any object allegedly handled by a perpetrator should be properly bagged, preserved, and subjected to scientific testing, but stressed that none of these steps were taken with the Clorox bottle or the matchbox.
Court Curbs Defense Line of Questioning
Tensions rose when defense lawyers attempted to probe how the State could lawfully link the accused to the alleged arson in the absence of fingerprint evidence.
Presiding Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie intervened and halted that line of inquiry.
Judge Willie ruled that the witness had already indicated that “other documentary and oral evidence” formed part of the basis for the indictment, signaling that the prosecution’s case would not rest solely on the disputed physical exhibits.
Earlier n Tuesday, to the disbelief of court, Liberia National Police Chief Investigator of the Crime Services Department , and a key prosecution witness in the ongoing Capitol arson Trail Raphael Wilson, fumble before court, after prosecution produced inaudible recording.
Witness on the stand Raphael Wilson fails to link the recording played to arson at the Capitol building even after repeated questioning.
According to Prosecution, the principal recording is part of its evidence gathered between November 10 until the day of the fire incident on the morning of December 18, at time employees of the House of Representatives attempted to remove the chairs for building renovation which preceded the fire incident on Dec 18.
The recording caused laughter across the courtroom bringing into question the validity of the prosecution evidence to convict former House Speaker J. Fonati Koffa and 14 co-defendants is currently ongoing at the Criminal Court ‘A’.
Last week, the Capitol Arson trial took a dramatic twist on Wednesday, December 3, after Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie issued a decisive ruling on a series of objections surrounding defendants’ statements, then moved to block the use of a prosecution laptop and eject two technicians over concerns raised by the defense.
Judge Willie ruled that several of the statements the prosecution sought to introduce through its first witness would not be admitted into evidence.
Citing Section 25.2 of the Civil Procedure Law of Liberia, the Judge emphasized that documents must be properly identified and testified to before they can be marked or admitted.
However, he held that statements made by the defendants themselves, while “in the dock,” should be marked and passed to the trial jurors, provided that they were properly testified to by the prosecution witness, LNP officer Raphael Wilson of the Crime Services Division.
On the defense’s claims that the statements were obtained through torture, Judge Willie said the issue had already been addressed by both Criminal Court “A” and the Supreme Court.
He added that the defendants were represented by counsel during police investigations, and any objections to mistreatment should have been raised by their lawyers at that stage.
He further cited medical reports sent to the court in which defendants reportedly denied being tortured, underscoring that the Supreme Court had already affirmed the findings.
Before the ruling, defense counsel had launched multiple objections during the direct examination of Officer Wilson, arguing that, the defendants did not write the statements attributed to them; some lawyers who represented them were forced upon them; the statements were irrelevant and had not been served on the defense as required by law and that the documents were extracted through torture and coercion.
Prosecution resisted, arguing that the defense “missed the legal timing” for such objections, and insisted the issues had already been disposed of at higher levels of the judiciary.
The most explosive confrontation came after the ruling, when the defense accused the prosecution of attempting to introduce “made-up” evidence.
The dispute began when one of the technicians assisting prosecution witness Wilson abruptly left the courtroom without permission and returned with another laptop intended to display video evidence.
Defense counsel argued that such conduct raised serious integrity concerns about the electronic evidence being presented.
Defense further complained that a female technician assisting the prosecution had been seen using her phone, allegedly communicating during the proceedings, another red flag, they said, for safeguarding the authenticity of the digital material.
Judge Willie immediately acted on the concerns and barred the newly introduced laptop from being used.
He also ordered both technicians to leave the courtroom entirely.
This decision came even though the technicians had already begun displaying video and audio recordings, which the prosecution maintained were crucial pieces of evidence in the Capitol Arson case.
The ongoing arson trail is now focus on jury selection and the admissibility of evidence.
Former Speaker Koffa and all co-defendants have pleaded not guilty to a range of charges, including arson, criminal attempt to commit murder, criminal mischief, and criminal conspiracy, related to the December 18, 2024, fire at the Capitol Building.
Earlier this month , the court has been facing difficulties in empaneling a complete and impartial jury due to various challenges, including state prosecutors repeatedly seeking the removal of seated jurors based on alleged political ties.
The defense team has raised serious concerns about the prosecution’s key evidence, claiming that statements from some witnesses were obtained through torture, coercion, and other unlawful methods. The presiding judge has ruled that the jury will ultimately decide on the credibility of these statements.
The trial has experienced delays due to legal maneuvers, including a temporary stay of proceedings ordered by the Supreme Court in September 2025 after the defense filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a lower court’s decision regarding evidence suppression.
The case is widely considered politically sensitive, with the defense alleging that the charges are politically motivated. The defendants were released on a criminal appearance bond after being initially remanded to Monrovia Central Prison in June 2025.
At the start of the trail in earlier this year, Former House Speaker J. Fonati Koffa launched a counterattack against the Liberia National Police hours after his release from Monrovia Central Prison, accusing Police Inspector General Gregory Coleman of orchestrating a politically motivated campaign to tarnish his reputation in the Capitol Building arson probe.
“The innuendos, the lies, and misstatements—they will be deconstructed,” Koffa told reporters at the headquarters of the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) in Congo Town.
“This case is not about justice. It’s political. And the Inspector General said so himself.”
Koffa and three other lawmakers—Reps. Dixon Seboe, Abu Bana Kamara, and Jacob Debee—were released on bond after spending two nights in detention. They had been jailed on June 7 after failing to secure a joint criminal appearance bond in the high-profile case tied to the December 2024 fire that gutted sections of the Capitol.
The police have labeled the incident a “treasonous act” aimed at destabilizing democratic governance, a characterization Koffa vehemently rejects.
Police: Fire Was Politically Motivated Attack On Democracy
At a press conference , Police Chief Coleman alleged the fire was no accident but “a deliberate and treasonous act by individuals who sought to disrupt the core of Liberia’s democratic governance for political advantage.”
The investigation reportedly links the conspiracy to November 8, 2024, when Thomas Ivinsick Etheridge, then Chief of Maintenance under Speaker Koffa, allegedly took unauthorized control of the Chief Clerk’s Office keys. Etheridge remains in custody and has reportedly confessed to facilitating entry into the Capitol under Koffa’s orders.
Police say more than 65 people were interviewed, and evidence includes digital communications, surveillance footage, and phone records.
Koffa has been charged with arson, conspiracy, criminal solicitation and facilitation, criminal mischief, attempted murder, and reckless endangerment.
Police accuse Rep. Seboe of funding the plot, while Reps. Kamara and Debee allegedly provided logistical support. Rep. Priscilla Cooper faces charges of solicitation and facilitation. Several of Koffa’s former staffers have also been implicated.
