—– Judge Roosevelt Willie Grants Prosecution Motion to Disband Jury
IPNEWS: For some time it had bee rumored of a plan to falsely convict former House Speaker Cllr. Johanthan Fonati Koffa, and others in an alleged arson attack on the Capitol Building which happened on December 18, 2024.
Late September 2025, A Panoramic Justice Group, based in Washington D.C. stated it had credible intelligence that the Liberian Government was preparing to engage in political manipulation in the ongoing Capitol Arson case, with the intent of securing a predetermined guilty verdict against the accused defendants.
The group warned that such interference would not only undermine the integrity of the judicial process, but also constitute a grave violation of the defendants’ fundamental right to a fair and impartial trial.
Reports further indicate that this scheme is being directed at the highest levels of government, including Director of the Executive Protection Service (EPS), Sam Gaye; Inspector General of Police, Greg Coleman; National Security Advisor, Samuel Kofi Woods; and Minister of Justice, Oswald Tweh.
Their alleged involvement according to the Washington based group is deeply troubling, particularly in light of longstanding concerns regarding Liberia’s state security agencies, which have been implicated in torture, extrajudicial killings, and other serious abuses—as documented in the 2024 U.S. Department of State Report on Liberia (released in 2025).
“Such conduct raises serious issues of conflict of interest, accountability, and obstruction of justice. These senior officials are fully aware that their actions may trigger international legal consequences”. the Washington Based Panoramic Justice Group stated.
The statement further noted that several of these officials, along with other members of state security agencies, reportedly hold legal status in Western jurisdictions. This reality heightens the international dimension of these allegations. If substantiated, the actions described would not only breach Liberian law, but also contravene international human rights obligations to which Liberia is bound, exposing those involved to potential accountability under international and extraterritorial legal frameworks.
Up to press time the Independent Probe did not get any reply from those named in the planned predetermined guilty verdict. Investigation continues
In March 2024, Liberia’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Cllr. N. Oswald Tweh, emphasized that his ministry would proceed with prosecutions only within the strict confines of the law, prioritizing solid evidence over “quick, flawed outcomes”.
Tweh has stated that the Ministry of Justice is working methodically to ensure all cases are handled with fairness and integrity, noting that rushing to court without sufficient evidence often results in sustainable justice being denied.
He highlighted that the ministry is employing forensic financial analysis, covert investigations, and witness protection to build strong cases against “powerful individuals” who may attempt to manipulate evidence.
Despite the deliberate pace, he reaffirmed the government’s commitment to holding both past and current officials accountable for corruption before the end of 2025.
Tweh famously remarked that “justice delayed should not be confused with justice denied,” urging citizens to remain patient as the state gathers the necessary tools for “strong, sustainable outcomes”.
In a dramatic turn in the ongoing Capitol Building Arson trial, state prosecutors on Monday, December 29, 2025, filed a motion urging the court to disband the current jury and empanel a new one, citing concerns over the panel’s ability to deliver an impartial verdict.
The prosecution argues that the 14 trial jurors have shown signs of incompetence and bias, particularly during questioning on the 36th day of jury deliberations, December 22, 2025.
Lawyers expressed “utter dismay” after observing jurors consulting each other before posing questions to the state’s first witness, Chief Superintendent Rafael A. Wilson of the Liberia National Police.
“Those exchanges bring into serious question whether or not the current venire of petit/trial jurors are capable of rendering an independent and impartial verdict,” the motion states, referencing the evidence expected in this high-profile case involving the November 10, 2024, arson attack on the Joint Chambers of the National Legislature.
Prosecutors highlighted a specific incident where Juror J30-9863 requested a replay of key audio-video footage.
After viewing it, the juror reportedly declared, “the individual in the video shown is a Chinese man and not Etheridge,” prematurely forming an opinion on the defendant’s identity and prejudicing the case.
The state invoked Section 19 of the Jury Procedures Manual, which allows jury sequestration to prevent tampering, but argued that the jurors’ “lack of determination to make independent judgment” poses an even greater threat to a fair trial.
Defense Rejects Motion as Baseless Attack Defense lawyers swiftly countered, calling the allegations “false, misleading, and unsupported by evidence.”
They maintain that jurors may ask clarifying questions, which shows attentiveness, not impropriety.
“The prosecution’s dissatisfaction with juror questions does not meet the legal threshold for the extraordinary remedy of disbanding a jury,” the defense response reads.
They described the motion as an “unwarranted attack” on the jury’s integrity and the court’s authority, with no proof of external influence, intimidation, or interference.
On the named juror, the defense insisted the inquiry was lawful and essential for evaluating evidence in pursuit of justice.
They warned that politicizing juror questions could erode public trust in the judiciary.Judge Willie has yet to rule.
A decision is anticipated on Friday, January 2, 2026, which could allow the trial to continue or force a full jury reset.
Now, in a major twist in the ongoing Capitol Building arson case, Criminal Court “A” has officially disbanded the jury panel following a motion filed by the Prosecution.
The decision was made on Tuesday, January 2, 2026, at the Temple of Justice, where the court determined that the integrity of the trial could be compromised if the current jury remained empaneled.
Furthermore, Prosecution contends staunchly and sternly that as if the previous conduct of some of the trial jurors was not sufficient to render their service in these proceedings as worthless and prejudicial to prosecution’s case; jury man J30-9863, on Monday, December 22, 2025, same being the 36th Jury Sitting, requested in his question to Prosecution’s First Witness to have the November 10, 2024, audio/Video recording replayed showing the desecration of the Joint Chambers of the National Legislature to which the witness had earlier testified.
Prosecution further mentioned in her motion that in responding to the witness’s answer, jury member J30-9863 concluded and formed an opinion by saying the individual in the video shown is a Chinese man and not Etheridge.
Presiding Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie granted the motion and ordered that a new jury selection process be initiated immediately to avoid delays in the high-profile trial.
The principles of the doctrine of ‘mistrial’ states that a ‘mistrial is a trial that is terminated and declared void before a verdict or decision is reached. It essentially treats the proceedings as if they never occurred, resulting in no legal determination of guilt or innocence.
The principles also stated that a judge may declare a mistrial for several reasons, including that the most common cause; jurors are hopelessly deadlocked and cannot reach the required consensus (unanimous in most criminal cases); Significant mistakes in law or procedure that make a fair trial impossible, such as a fatally defective indictment; Inappropriate behavior by a juror (e.g., discussing the case with media), an attorney (e.g., making prejudicial remarks), or a witness; The jury accidentally hears or sees powerful, biased evidence that they cannot be reasonably expected to ignore, even with instructions, and that a key participant, such as the judge, an attorney, or a juror, becomes incapacitated, dies, or is otherwise unable to continue.
However, there are some legal consequences for invoking ‘mistrial’.
A mistrial does not mean the defendant is “not guilty.” Because there is no verdict, the defendant is neither convicted nor acquitted.
In most cases, the prosecution can choose to start the trial over from the beginning with a new jury. Generally, double jeopardy does not bar a retrial unless the mistrial was caused by intentional prosecutorial or judicial misconduct designed to provoke a mistrial.
If a defendant objects to a mistrial, the judge must find a “manifest necessity”—a high standard of emergency or absolute need—to declare one without barring a future retrial.
This principle requires either the prosecution or the defense to move for a mistrial by filing a motion. Additionally, a judge has the authority to declare one sua sponte (on their own) if they observe a serious error.
