IPNEWS: Former Education Minister George K. Warner has launched a forceful challenge to the Liberian government over its prosecution of former Vice President Jewel Howard-Taylor, demanding that prosecutors prove in court the specific criminal acts they have attributed to her.
In a strongly worded statement titled “Make the State Prove Its Verbs,” Warner said he has a “sick feeling” about the case, not because he knows what happened in Dubai or what is contained in an audio recording reportedly in the government’s possession, but because of the extraordinary seriousness of the accusations against a former Vice President.
Warner stopped short of declaring Howard-Taylor innocent, emphasizing that he does not know whether the government’s allegations are true.
Instead, he argued that the State must prove the actions behind its accusations.
“Nouns do not convict people. The verbs matter,” Warner wrote.
According to Warner, the government’s case contains a series of serious allegations that Howard-Taylor knew, agreed, conspired, facilitated, solicited, protected and laundered.
His argument is that each of those allegations represents a specific proposition that prosecutors must establish with evidence—not merely state in a charge sheet.
‘Prove the agreement’
Warner singled out the government’s allegation that Howard-Taylor traveled to Dubai, met individuals identified by prosecutors as members of a transnational cocaine-trafficking organization, discussed using Liberia as a cocaine transit point and agreed to the arrangement.
He questioned what evidence establishes that alleged agreement.
Who heard her agree? What exactly did she say? Was the conversation recorded? Are there messages before or after the meeting demonstrating an agreement? Did she subsequently take any action consistent with the alleged arrangement?
Warner warned against treating association or physical presence as proof of criminal participation.
“Presence is not necessarily participation. Association is not necessarily conspiracy,” he wrote.
‘Trace the money’
Warner also challenged the government’s allegations concerning US$45,000, US$75,000 and US$15,000 allegedly connected to Howard-Taylor.
He called on prosecutors to trace the origin, delivery and destination of each payment and establish what Howard-Taylor knew about the alleged source and purpose of the money.
He specifically questioned whether the US$75,000 allegedly connected to the Jewel Star Fish Foundation entered the organization’s accounts, how it was recorded and how it was ultimately spent.
Warner argued that receiving money, without proof of the required criminal elements, does not automatically establish money laundering or participation in drug trafficking.
The critical issue, he said, is knowledge, intent and criminal purpose.
‘Identify the protection’
Warner also took aim at the government’s allegation that Howard-Taylor used political influence and public office to provide protection to an alleged cocaine-trafficking network.
If that allegation is true, he argued, prosecutors should identify the actual acts of protection.
Did she order police to stand down? Did she interfere with the Liberia Drug Enforcement Agency? Did she intervene with immigration, customs or airport officials? Did she arrange documents or otherwise facilitate the movement of drugs, money or people?
“If the State says a Vice President abused the power of her office to protect cocaine traffickers, it should be able to identify the acts through which that protection was provided,” Warner wrote.
‘Produce the audio’
The alleged audio recording also features prominently in Warner’s challenge.
He urged the State, at the appropriate evidentiary stage, to establish the recording’s authenticity, provenance, completeness and chain of custody.
Warner questioned who recorded it, when it was recorded, whether it was edited, who the speakers are and what was said immediately before and after the portion prosecutors rely upon.
He argued that context could be critical to determining the meaning of any statement attributed to Howard-Taylor.
Kante’s role questioned
Warner also identified Bashiru Kante as a potentially crucial figure in the government’s case.
According to the government’s narrative as described by Warner, Kante allegedly served as a link between Howard-Taylor and individuals identified as members of the alleged cocaine network and was involved in transmitting money.
Warner therefore questioned what Kante has told investigators, whether he is cooperating with Liberian or foreign authorities, whether he has received any benefit for cooperating and whether his claims are supported by independent evidence.
For Warner, those questions do not amount to a declaration of Howard-Taylor’s innocence.
Rather, they underscore the distinction between an accusation and proof.
Retroactivity question
Warner also raised a legal issue concerning the timeline of the allegations.
He noted that the government’s narrative reportedly reaches back to alleged conduct beginning in 2022, while prosecutors invoke Liberia’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act of 2023, among other legal authorities.
He said Howard-Taylor’s lawyers will have to determine which laws applied when each alleged act occurred and whether any attempt is being made to apply a newer criminal statute retroactively.
Warner described protection against retroactive criminal punishment as a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
‘Silence is not a confession’
Another point Warner emphasized was Howard-Taylor’s decision to remain silent when questioned in the presence of her lawyers.
He said that decision was her constitutional right and should not be transformed into evidence of guilt.
“Silence is not a confession,” he wrote.
Warner’s broader message is that the seriousness of Liberia’s cocaine crisis should not result in a lower standard of proof for criminal convictions.
He acknowledged that if evidence establishes that powerful Liberians knowingly assisted international drug traffickers, those individuals should face the full force of the law regardless of political status.
But he warned that the reverse is equally important: political power must not be used to convict people without sufficient evidence.
“Due process is not softness on drugs,” Warner wrote. “The presumption of innocence is not protection for powerful people. Requiring evidence is not obstruction of justice.”
A test for the State
Warner’s intervention places the government’s case against Howard-Taylor under an increasingly intense evidentiary spotlight.
He does not claim the former Vice President is innocent. Instead, he argues that the government’s detailed allegations create an equally detailed obligation to prove them.
If prosecutors allege US$45,000, he says, prove the transaction and its criminal significance.
If they allege US$75,000, trace it.
If they allege Dubai, establish what happened there.
If they allege an agreement, prove the agreement.
If they rely on an audio recording, authenticate it.
If they allege protection, identify the acts of protection.
If they allege knowledge and conspiracy, prove them.
Warner ultimately framed the case as a test not merely for Howard-Taylor, but for Liberia’s justice system.
“A writ of arrest is not a verdict,” he argued. “A prosecutor’s allegation has not yet survived cross-examination merely because it appears on official stationery.”
As the case proceeds, the central question will therefore be whether the government’s allegations can withstand the scrutiny of evidence, cross-examination and the courts.
Warner’s closing challenge was blunt:
“For now, the Republic has made its allegations. It has supplied the nouns. Now make the State prove its verbs.”
