IPNEWS: The Liberia National Police has arrested and charged Peter Bonor Jallah, Jr. with aggravated involuntary sodomy, gang rape, and kidnapping in connection with the alleged sexual abuse of a minor.
The arrest and charges, made on January 7, 2026, have sparked debate in Liberia regarding the consistent application of legal standards by police.
Suspect was arrested on January 7, 2026, on charges of Aggravated involuntary sodomy, gang rape, and kidnapping, growing out of allegations. According to the charge sheet, Jallah and unidentified accomplices allegedly sodomized the victim (identified as A.H.B.A, a minor male) on multiple dates: November 29, 2025, December 24, 2025, and between January 1 and January 3, 2026.
Jallah was released by Criminal Court “C” pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus due to being detained for more than 48 hours without being formally charged. However, a writ was served on him charging him upon his exit from the court premises. Reports indicate the police are still searching for the actual perpetrator(s) even with the victim pointing fingers at Jallah.
The case has drawn attention from Liberian officials, including Senator Cllr. Augustine Chea, who questioned the police’s application of “probable cause” standards, noting that Jallah was charged without DNA evidence, while another official (Deputy Minister J. Bryant McGill) was cleared of a separate rape allegation due to a lack of DNA evidence. This has led to accusations of selective justice and an inconsistent application of the law.
Cllr. Chea argues that the rule of law depends on the consistent and impartial enforcement of legal standards. When law enforcement authorities apply different evidentiary thresholds to similar criminal allegations, the legitimacy of the justice system is compromised.
Recent police handling of two sexual-offence cases — the first involving suspended Deputy Youth and Sports Minister, J. Bryant McGill, who allegedly raped a 16-year-old girl, and the second involving dismissed Deputy NSA Director, Peter Bonor Jallah, Jr., who it is alleged sodomized a15-year-old boy, highlights troubling inconsistencies in arrest practices.
In the first case, the police declined to arrest Deputy Minister McGill, the rape suspect, citing the absence of DNA evidence. In the second case, the police arrested and detained Deputy Director Jallah accused of sodomizing a minor without DNA or forensic proof. This is inconsistency and abuse of discretion.
“Our criminal law does not require DNA evidence as a precondition for arrest. Under the Criminal Procedure Law, the police are empowered to arrest a suspect where there is reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. The legal threshold for arrest is therefore distinct from the higher standard of proof required at trial. Victim statements, witness accounts, medical reports, and surrounding circumstances may lawfully form the basis for reasonable suspicion or probable cause. DNA evidence, though valuable, is not a statutory requirement at the arrest stage.
The selective reliance on DNA evidence in one case, but not in another, raises concerns about arbitrary selective exercise of police discretion. Such inconsistency violates Article 11(c) of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, and Article 20(a), which protects the right to personal liberty and due process.
While the police arrested, detained, and charged Peter Bonor Jallah, Jr. with aggravated involuntary sodomy based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and not DNA evidence — and rightly so — the police have refused to arrest and detain J. Bryant McGill on the same probable cause standards, but requiring DNA evidence. And what is even more troubling and disheartening is that the police have today cleared Deputy Minister J. Bryant McGill of the rape allegation, raising serious questions about how this determination was reached.
Treating DNA evidence as indispensable in some cases but optional in others undermines the principle of equal treatment before the law and weakens confidence in the justice system.
The issue is not whether DNA evidence should be pursued. It should be collected wherever possible, but whether police actions are guided by law rather than discretion applied unevenly. Consistent or uniform application of arrest standards is essential to maintaining public trust and ensuring that justice is neither arbitrary nor selective.” Cllr. Augustine Chea alarmed.
