Retired Captain Anderson plans a 10,000-signature petition seeking legislative action on veterans’ welfare, historical compensation claims, and a proposed role for former soldiers in national development.

By Willie N. Tokpah

MONROVIA — Retired soldiers of the Armed Forces of Liberia (AFL) are preparing to converge on the Samuel K. Doe Sports Stadium on Thursday, October 15, for a constitutional assembly aimed at mobilizing support for a petition demanding legislative action on what their leadership describes as decades of unresolved grievances over pensions, salaries, and the treatment of former military personnel.

Led by Retired Captain William Phillip Anderson, who identifies himself as National Chairman Commander of the AFL Veteran Soldiers, the group intends to collect 10,000 signatures for a petition to the National Legislature seeking a review of the Veterans Act, an investigation into historical military compensation arrangements, and reforms to the pension system.

The petition is also expected to demand what Anderson describes as 36 years of retroactive salary payments, alongside a revised compensation framework that takes into account former soldiers’ ranks, years of service, and historical salary arrangements.

Beyond financial compensation, the veterans are proposing an expanded role for former military personnel in national development, including contributions to engineering, agriculture, medical services, and border security.

The planned assembly comes amid broader questions about Liberia’s obligations to former members of its armed forces, the legal framework governing their retirement benefits, and the potential use of their experience in civilian development and national security.

Anderson insists that the gathering is intended to be peaceful and constitutional, emphasizing that the veterans want their grievances addressed through established government institutions rather than through confrontation.

“We are not assembling to threaten the peace of Liberia. We are assembling to demand justice through constitutional means. Our grievances must be heard, investigated, and addressed through the institutions of government,” is the central message of his position.

The scale of participation, the government’s response, and the organizers’ ability to maintain discipline will help determine whether Thursday’s assembly becomes the starting point for substantive engagement or another episode in the long-running debate over veterans’ welfare.

A Longstanding Grievance Over Pensions

At the heart of the veterans’ demands is what Anderson describes as a longstanding failure to adequately recognize and compensate former AFL personnel following the restructuring of the country’s armed forces.

The veterans argue that the treatment of former soldiers, particularly the determination of their retirement benefits, has left many dissatisfied with the government’s compensation arrangements.

One of their principal complaints concerns a reported monthly pension of LD$7,000, which they say does not adequately reflect differences in military rank, responsibilities, and years of service.

According to Anderson, the uniform payment raises questions about whether the existing pension structure fairly accounts for the varied responsibilities performed by personnel during their service.

The veterans want lawmakers to investigate the legal and administrative foundations of the pension arrangement, identify the legislation and budgetary provisions supporting it, and examine the criteria used to determine eligibility and payment levels.

They are also calling for a review of the circumstances surrounding the disbandment and restructuring of the former AFL, including the treatment of personnel who were not incorporated into the restructured force and the subsequent determination of their retirement benefits.

These claims have yet to be established through an independent review of the relevant records. Their verification would require examination of applicable laws, military payroll documents, retirement instruments, government financial records, and testimony from former military and government officials.

For Anderson and the veterans’ leadership, however, the issue extends beyond the amount received each month. They argue that the government must account for the service rendered by former soldiers and explain how their benefits were determined.

The proposed legislative inquiry is intended to establish whether the existing framework adequately addresses the veterans’ circumstances and whether changes are necessary.

The 36-Year Back-Pay Demand

Perhaps the most contentious element of the proposed petition is the demand for 36 years of retroactive salary compensation.

Anderson traces the grievance to historical salary arrangements, changes in currency administration, and the depreciation of the Liberian dollar.

He maintains that before the civil war, a private soldier earned approximately US$60 and that the exchange rate was treated as one Liberian dollar to one United States dollar.

According to his account, subsequent currency changes and the introduction of newly printed Liberian-dollar notes during the conflict contributed to arrangements that, he argues, failed to adequately reflect the currency’s declining purchasing power.

Anderson contends that salary conversions based on nominal exchange-rate assumptions left military personnel receiving compensation that did not correspond to the actual value of their earnings.

He has cited cases in which general-grade officers allegedly received approximately LD$1,000 monthly, an amount he says represented less than US$20 under the economic conditions at the time.

The veterans argue that their compensation failed to reflect their responsibilities and the economic realities confronting the country while they continued serving the Republic under difficult conditions.

However, the proposed demand for 36 years of back pay raises complex legal and financial questions that cannot be resolved solely through the veterans’ account.

A credible assessment would require a detailed reconstruction of historical salary scales, exchange-rate policies, applicable payment arrangements, individual service records, and any legal obligations established during the relevant periods.

The calculation would also need to distinguish between historical salary differences, pension entitlements, currency-related losses, and any compensation that may already have been paid.

The veterans want the National Legislature to initiate that examination and determine whether additional payments are legally justified.

If the demand advances, the government would face questions about the scale of any potential liability, the legal basis for payment, the availability of documentary evidence, and the implications for public finances.

For Anderson, the proposed inquiry is necessary to establish what former soldiers were entitled to receive and whether outstanding obligations remain unresolved.

Anderson Urges Discipline and Constitutional Action

Anderson has framed the planned assembly as an exercise of constitutional rights, emphasizing peaceful mobilization, discipline, and institutional accountability.

He argues that former soldiers should not be expected to remain silent about grievances they believe have persisted for decades.

The planned petition invokes Article 17 of Liberia’s Constitution, which protects citizens’ rights to assemble and petition the government. The veterans also associate their initiative with Article 91, although the precise legal basis and procedures applicable to the proposed petition would need to be established under the relevant constitutional provisions and legislative rules.

Anderson has called on participants to remain disciplined, avoid intimidation, respect public officials, and refrain from conduct that could endanger civilians or disrupt public order.

The choice of the Samuel K. Doe Sports Stadium, he says, reflects a desire to provide an organized venue for the gathering while minimizing disruption to residents and other members of the public.

The assembly presents responsibilities for both the organizers and the government. The veterans must ensure that their activities remain peaceful and lawful, while the authorities must respect the constitutional rights of participants and maintain appropriate public-safety arrangements.

For the veterans’ leadership, the objective is to channel their grievances into a structured petition supported by signatures and proposals for legislative review.

Their position is that peaceful constitutional advocacy should lead to meaningful engagement rather than dismissal without substantive consideration.

The government’s response will help determine whether the initiative opens a credible channel for dialogue between the veterans and the institutions responsible for addressing their claims.

Beyond Pensions: A Proposed Civil Workforce

The veterans’ proposed agenda extends beyond retirement benefits to the possible establishment of a structured civil workforce involving former AFL personnel.

Anderson argues that veterans possess technical knowledge, military training, administrative experience, and practical skills that could contribute to national development if properly organized.

He points to specialized units that existed within the former AFL, including an Engineer Battalion, a Medical Unit, and an Agriculture Battalion, which he says contributed to functions beyond combat operations.

The veterans believe their accumulated experience could support infrastructure development, agricultural programs, medical services, and other government initiatives.

Their proposal seeks to transform what they consider an underutilized national resource into a structured public-service arrangement.

Such a program could provide opportunities for qualified former military personnel to contribute to civilian projects, but its implementation would require a clear legal framework, defined responsibilities, transparent recruitment criteria, sustainable financing, and appropriate civilian oversight.

The proposal also raises questions about how veterans would be selected, whether participation would be voluntary, and how the program would relate to existing public-sector employment structures.

Anderson’s broader argument is that retirement should not prevent former soldiers from contributing their knowledge and experience to national development.

Veterans Propose Border Patrol Role

Another component of the proposed petition calls for the establishment of a Border Patrol Battalion to support the Liberia Immigration Service and the Armed Forces of Liberia in protecting the country’s territorial borders.

The veterans argue that their military experience could help strengthen border management and national security.

However, the proposal would require careful consideration of the respective mandates of existing security institutions, operational command, training requirements, funding, accountability, and the legal status of participating personnel.

Any arrangement involving retired soldiers in security-related functions would also need to distinguish between civilian public-service duties and activities requiring formal authorization within the country’s security architecture.

The veterans’ proposal therefore represents a policy recommendation for government consideration, rather than an existing mandate or approved security arrangement.

Whether the idea could be implemented would depend on a detailed assessment of national security priorities, institutional capacity, legal requirements, and the potential benefits of incorporating qualified former personnel into authorized programs.

A Controversial Push for Leadership Positions

Among the most politically sensitive provisions of Anderson’s proposed agenda are demands for greater representation of veterans in the leadership and training of Liberia’s defense and security institutions.

According to the proposed agenda, the veterans want legislation requiring the Minister of National Defense, deputy and assistant ministers, and directors to be former soldiers. They also propose that national security advisers be veterans.

Another provision calls for veterans to occupy 50 percent of the General and Special Staff positions within the Armed Forces of Liberia.

The group further proposes that military training officers be veterans and that qualified former AFL personnel provide training support to the Armed Forces, Liberia National Police, Liberia Drug Enforcement Agency, and Liberia Immigration Service.

Anderson argues that experienced veterans could help strengthen institutional memory, professional discipline, operational preparedness, and the transfer of military knowledge to younger personnel.

The proposals, however, raise significant questions about merit-based recruitment, professional qualifications, constitutional appointment powers, civilian oversight, and the distinct requirements of military and civilian leadership positions.

A blanket requirement reserving specified public offices for veterans would need to be assessed against existing laws, constitutional principles, and the qualifications required for each position.

Military experience may provide valuable expertise, but it does not automatically establish eligibility for every civilian or security-sector leadership role.

The National Legislature would therefore need to consider the proposals individually, weighing their potential benefits against the need to preserve professional standards, equal access to public employment, and effective civilian governance.

The veterans’ demands remain proposals that would require legislative scrutiny and, where necessary, legal review.

A National Security Question That Cannot Be Ignored

The planned assembly also raises broader questions about the relationship between veterans’ welfare, national security, and public confidence in state institutions.

Former military personnel can possess valuable institutional knowledge and technical skills. Their concerns about retirement security, recognition of service, and the treatment of former colleagues warrant serious consideration.

At the same time, the presence of a large gathering of former soldiers calls for responsible coordination, clear communication, and respect for lawful public-safety arrangements.

The veterans’ leadership says the stadium will provide an organized location for the assembly and reinforce its commitment to peaceful action.

The government, meanwhile, has a responsibility to protect the participants’ right to assemble while maintaining public order and ensuring that emergency services and surrounding communities are not exposed to unnecessary risks.

Constructive engagement could include communication with the organizers, clarification of safety arrangements, and an established process for receiving and evaluating the petition.

The assembly should not, by itself, be treated as evidence of a security threat simply because its participants are former soldiers. Equally, the organizers have a responsibility to ensure that their activities remain peaceful and comply with applicable law.

The central question is how Liberia can address legitimate veterans’ concerns while maintaining a professional, accountable, and constitutionally governed security sector.

Why the Legislature Matters

Anderson is directing the petition to the National Legislature because the proposed demands extend beyond individual pension payments.

They include a review of the Veterans Act, an investigation into historical compensation arrangements, possible amendments to existing laws, a revised salary framework, and proposals for a civil workforce and expanded participation in national development.

The veterans want lawmakers to examine the laws governing their benefits, determine how the current pension arrangements were established, review historical salary records, and establish whether further legislative action is warranted.

The proposed collection of 10,000 signatures is intended to demonstrate broad support for the initiative.

However, the legal sufficiency of that number and the procedures governing the petition must be determined under the applicable constitutional provisions and legislative rules.

Lawmakers would also need to distinguish between issues that can be addressed through ordinary legislation, matters requiring amendments to existing laws, and questions that may require judicial interpretation.

The legislature’s role would not necessarily be to accept every demand. Rather, it would be to establish the facts, examine the legal framework, evaluate the financial implications, and determine which proposals merit action.

For the veterans, the critical test will be whether their petition receives a substantive response rather than being treated as a ceremonial submission.

A Test of Government Accountability

Thursday’s Constitutional General Muster Assembly could become a significant moment in the debate over Liberia’s obligations to former military personnel.

At stake are claims involving pensions, historical compensation, the restructuring of the former armed forces, veterans’ welfare, and proposals to deploy retired soldiers’ experience in national development.

The demands are broad and, in some cases, controversial. Their legal and financial implications require independent examination rather than automatic acceptance or dismissal.

Several questions will be central to that process: How were the historical salary arrangements established? What laws and regulations govern current veterans’ benefits? Do records establish that additional compensation is legally owed? Could a revised pension structure be developed transparently and sustainably? And how can qualified former military personnel contribute to civilian development without compromising the constitutional and professional requirements of Liberia’s security institutions?

These questions require documented answers and a process that allows the veterans, relevant government agencies, and lawmakers to examine the available evidence.

As Anderson prepares to lead the initiative, his message to participating veterans is one of discipline, restraint, and determination.

The veterans want their service recognized, their claims investigated, and their proposals considered by the institutions empowered to act on them.

Ultimately, the significance of the October 15 assembly will not be determined solely by the number of signatures collected or the strength of the rhetoric surrounding the gathering. It will depend on whether the veterans present verifiable evidence, whether the government and legislature respond transparently, and whether a credible process emerges for resolving any legitimate outstanding obligations.

For Liberia, the assembly offers an opportunity to demonstrate that longstanding and politically sensitive grievances can be examined through peaceful constitutional action, with due regard for the rule of law, public finances, and the professional standards of the country’s security institutions.

Editorial note: Before publication, verify the reported LD$7,000 monthly pension, the historical salary figures, the legal basis for the 36-year back-pay demand, and the references to Articles 17 and 91 of the Constitution. The story should also include a response from the Ministry of National Defense or the relevant veterans’ affairs authorities, if available.

Monrovia – The guilty verdict involving former Foreign Affairs Minister Dee-Maxwell Saah Kemayah in Liberia’s high-profile Saudi-donated rice case has sparked fresh political debate, with opposition figure Jefferson T. Koijee accusing the Boakai administration of political persecution and Spoon Talk host Stanton Witherspoon questioning aspects of the case.

By Willie N. Tokpah

The reactions come as questions continue to surround the handling of a US$500,000 humanitarian rice donation, the responsibilities of government officials and the fairness of the trial, which concluded with a series of guilty, not-guilty and inconclusive verdicts at Criminal Court “C” in Monrovia on October 9, 2026.

Koijee and political commentator Witherspoon, separately criticized the guilty verdict against former Foreign Affairs Minister Dee-Maxwell Saah Kemayah, raising questions about the case and the broader administration of justice in Liberia.

Koijee, a prominent opposition figure, described Kemayah’s conviction as an example of what he called political persecution under President Joseph Nyuma Boakai’s administration.

In a statement issued on his social media page, he accused the government of using the justice system against perceived political opponents, although he did not present independent evidence in the statement to establish that the verdict was politically motivated.

Koijee cited cases involving former Vice President Jewel Howard-Taylor and former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah to support his argument that the justice system was being used unfairly.

He also referenced testimony by former Monrovia City Mayor Mary Broh, who reportedly said Kemayah acted to “rescue the rice” during the controversy surrounding the distribution of Saudi-donated rice.

“Law without justice is just power wearing a robe,” Koijee said, arguing that every Liberian is entitled to due process and a fair and impartial trial.

Similarly, Witherspoon, speaking on his Spoon Talk platform, also questioned Kemayah’s guilt during a discussion with Al-Hassan Fadiga.

When asked whether he believed the former minister was guilty, Witherspoon responded emphatically: “Hell no, I don’t believe that he’s guilty. Hell no, I don’t believe that he’s guilty.”

Witherspoon subsequently defended the government’s handling of the rice controversy as a precedent that could help the country, while questioning whether Kemayah’s actions amounted to the misapplication of entrusted property.

He pointed to the need to identify the person who requested the rice during the transitional period, arguing that the circumstances surrounding the request deserved closer examination.

Despite his criticism of the conviction, Witherspoon said President Boakai had established what he considered a precedent that could benefit Liberia.

He also expressed the view that Kemayah should appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court.

The comments come amid public debate over the Saudi-donated rice case and the responsibilities of public officials in handling humanitarian commodities.

Any determination of the legal merits of the conviction, however, rests with the courts, including the Supreme Court if an appeal is pursued.

Neither Koijee’s allegations of political persecution nor Witherspoon’s doubts about Kemayah’s guilt, on their own, establish that the trial was politically motivated or that the verdict was legally unsound.

From Saudi Donation to Criminal Trial

The case dates back to April 2023, when Saudi Arabia donated 29,412 bags of 25-kilogram rice, valued at approximately US$500,000, to Liberia for disaster victims and vulnerable communities.

The rice was received through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then headed by Kemayah, before being handed over to the National Disaster Management Agency, NDMA, for distribution.

The government’s Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force (AREPT) later alleged that 25,054 bags, valued at approximately US$425,918, were diverted, misapplied or distributed without proper authorization.

Prosecutors alleged that several former government officials exceeded their authority in handling the rice, including through the transfer of 13,895 bags from NDMA facilities to the General Services Agency, GSA.

The defendants, however, challenged aspects of the prosecution’s account, arguing that some transfers were administrative decisions intended to address storage problems and protect the remaining rice.

The case involved 13 former government officials and other individuals who faced charges including theft of property, economic sabotage, misapplication of entrusted property, abuse of office and criminal conspiracy.

All 13 defendants pleaded not guilty when the case proceeded to trial in August 2026.

During the proceedings, prosecution witnesses raised concerns about missing rice and inadequate distribution records, although the defense provided evidence to rebut prosecution claims.

Defense witnesses, meanwhile, disputed claims that the movement of the rice amounted to theft and offered explanations involving inter-agency decisions, warehouse conditions and efforts to protect the donation.

Former Monrovia City Mayor Mary T. Broh, who was initially charged, was removed from the case after the court granted the prosecution’s request to drop the charges against her.

She later testified about the rice controversy, with her evidence cited by critics of the prosecution as support for Kemayah’s defense.

Mixed Verdicts, Conflicting Reports

On October 9, the jury returned verdicts against several defendants, including Kemayah and former Internal Affairs Minister Varney A. Sirleaf, according to FrontPage Africa’s courtroom report.

Other defendants were acquitted, while some charges ended without a conclusive verdict.

However, the jury failed to reach a verdict on theft of property against Kemayah and had a not-guilty verdict on criminal conspiracy. The jury decision found him guilty on the remaining three charges.

The discrepancy makes confirmation of the formal verdict sheet and the court’s subsequent rulings important in establishing the exact legal outcome of each charge.

A hung verdict is not the same as a conviction or an acquittal.

The competing reactions have placed the Saudi rice case at the center of a wider debate over accountability, political influence and public confidence in Liberia’s justice system.

The next stage will depend on the formal court record, any unresolved charges and possible appeals. Until those issues are clarified, allegations of political persecution should be distinguished from established legal findings.

At its core, the case remains a test of whether Liberia can ensure that justice is administered fairly, regardless of political affiliation.

Prosecution Set to Present Rebuttal Witnesses Next Week as Court Moves Toward Closing Arguments in High-Profile Sexual Assault Case

By:Willie N. Tokpah

Monrovia-The trial of Peter Bon Jallah, alleged rape defendant, at Criminal Court “E” at the Temple of Justice in Monrovia is approaching a decisive stage, with the defense having rested its case and the court expected to hear prosecution rebuttal witnesses next week before closing arguments and a possible verdict on Thursday, October 22.

The case, being heard by Judge Wesseh Alphonsus Wesseh Sr. without a jury, is expected to conclude, if the remaining proceedings proceed according to the current schedule.

Following the defense’s presentation of eight witnesses, including Jallah himself, the court convened for the appearance of representatives from three institutions subpoenaed by the defense.

These institutions include, Orange GSM, the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection, and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, JFK.

The defense sought the institutions’ participation in connection with documents relevant to issues raised during the proceedings.

Their appearance forms part of the final evidentiary steps before the case moves into its rebuttal and closing-argument phases.

The court is scheduled to resume on Monday, October 19, and Tuesday, October 20, when the prosecution is expected to present rebuttal witnesses in response to evidence introduced by the defense.

Sources familiar with the trial indicate that the prosecution could call as many as eight rebuttal witnesses, although the final number will depend on how the proceedings unfold.

If the prosecution completes its rebuttal evidence within the anticipated period, the parties are expected to present their closing arguments on Thursday, October 22.

Judge Wesseh Aphansus Wesseh could then deliver a verdict the same day, determining whether Jallah is guilty or not guilty of the charges against him.

The projected timeline, however, remains dependent on the completion of the outstanding proceedings and the court’s directions.

A Trial Marked by Contested Testimony and Forensic Evidence

Jallah’s trial has drawn attention because of the seriousness of the allegations, the testimony of the 16-year-old alleged victim, and the competing arguments over forensic evidence, medical findings and the circumstances surrounding the alleged incidents.

The defendant is facing allegations involving rape, gang rape or statutory rape, and kidnapping in connection with the case. He has pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations.

During the prosecution’s presentation, the alleged victim testified about alleged sexual encounters involving Jallah between November 2025 and January 2026.

The prosecution also presented police investigators, medical personnel and forensic evidence in an effort to establish its case.

The prosecution’s witnesses included Rwandan forensic examiner Pascal Bavugirije, whose testimony concerning DNA analysis became one of the central evidentiary issues in the trial.

Bavugirije testified that DNA profiles recovered from clothing submitted for examination were consistent with a match to Jallah’s profile.

His testimony also addressed the limitations of the forensic findings, including the fact that DNA evidence alone cannot establish when or how a sexual act occurred or independently determine whether force, consent, penetration or criminal intent was involved.

The handling of the samples also became a point of dispute, with questions raised about collection, packaging, transportation and the chain of custody.

Those issues featured in the defense’s challenge to the prosecution’s forensic evidence.

Defense Challenges Prosecution’s Account

Throughout the trial, Jallah and his lawyers have disputed the prosecution’s account and questioned whether the evidence presented established his criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jallah denied the alleged encounters and challenged aspects of the alleged victim’s account, including the circumstances surrounding the reported incidents.

He also raised an alibi involving the Du-Port Road and Mikey Gray areas.

The defense questioned the significance of the medical evidence, arguing that the findings presented should not automatically be treated as proof that the alleged crimes occurred as described.

Jallah also disputed the circumstances under which biological samples were collected, alleging that the police planted saliva DNA evidence.

That allegation remains a defense claim and has not been established as a finding of the court.

Questions concerning mobile-phone records were another feature of the defense case.

Defendant Jallah had sought records covering January 1 to 3 and the Christmas period, arguing that the information could help address disputed issues about his movements and the allegations against him.

The defense’s presentation of eight witnesses, including Jallah, marked the conclusion of its main evidentiary case, although the scheduled appearance of institutional representatives and the prosecution’s anticipated rebuttal evidence remain important steps before the matter can be submitted for a final decision.

Judge Previously Rejected Acquittal Motion

The approaching conclusion follows an earlier critical ruling by Judge Wesseh, who on September 30, rejected a defense motion seeking Jallah’s acquittal after the prosecution had presented 12 witnesses.

At the time, the court determined that the prosecution’s evidence was not “wholly insufficient” to warrant allowing the case to proceed.

That ruling required Jallah to present his defense but did not constitute a determination of guilt.

The defense had challenged several aspects of the prosecution’s case, including the identification of the alleged crime scene, the interpretation of medical findings and the reliability and handling of the DNA evidence.

The rejection of the acquittal motion allowed the trial to proceed into the defense phase, culminating in Jallah’s testimony and the presentation of additional defense witnesses.

With the defense now having rested, the prosecution will have an opportunity to respond to relevant defense evidence through rebuttal witnesses before both sides make their final submissions.

October 22, A Potential Turning Point

The next two scheduled court days could prove decisive in determining whether the case reaches closing arguments and a verdict within the anticipated timeframe.

The prosecution is expected to use Monday, October 19, and Tuesday, October 20, to present rebuttal witnesses.

If the proceedings are completed as planned, the lawyers will argue their respective cases on Thursday, October 22, after which the judge could make a decision.

Unlike a jury trial, the final determination in this case rests with the presiding judge, who must assess the evidence admitted during the proceedings and apply the relevant law to determine whether the prosecution has proved the charges.

For the prosecution, the remaining task is to respond to the defense’s challenges and establish that the evidence satisfies the applicable criminal standard of proof.

For the defense, the closing arguments will provide an opportunity to consolidate its challenges to the credibility of the testimony, the interpretation of the forensic and medical evidence, and the prosecution’s overall case.

Until the judge delivers a verdict, Jallah remained entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the allegations against him remain allegations to be determined through the judicial process.

The scheduled conclusion on October 22 would bring the trial to a major turning point in a case that has tested the court’s consideration of witness testimony, forensic evidence and competing accounts of the alleged events.

Judge Ousman Feika Rejects Defense Submission Before Closing Arguments; His Prediction of a Supreme Court Challenge Raises Courtroom Questions

Monrovia- A jury at Criminal Court “C” in Monrovia has returned a series of guilty, not-guilty and inconclusive verdicts in the high-profile Saudi-donated rice trial, marking a dramatic development in a case involving former senior government officials accused of criminal wrongdoing in the handling of humanitarian rice donated to Liberia by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The verdicts followed the final arguments by prosecution and defense lawyers on Friday, bringing the trial to a critical juncture in a case that has attracted national attention because of the identities of the defendants and the humanitarian purpose of the donated commodity.

Among the defendants reported guilty on the principal charges were former Foreign Affairs Minister Dee-Maxwell Saah Kemayah, former Internal Affairs Minister Varney A. Sirleaf, National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA) disaster-victim official Augustine Kollie, and former General Services Agency (GSA) Deputy Director Edris Idris Bility.

Other defendants, including former NDMA Executive Director Henry O. Williams and former GSA official Memmie Davie Larmie, were reported not guilty on all five charges in the information supplied from the proceedings.

However, the jury’s decisions were not uniform across all defendants. Some individuals received mixed verdicts, while other charges ended in inconclusive or hung verdicts because jurors did not reach the necessary agreement.

The results, as reported from the courtroom, underscore the jury’s differing assessments of the allegations against the various defendants.

Feika Rejects Defense Lawyer’s Submission Before Final Arguments

Before the commencement of final arguments, Criminal Court “C” Judge Ousman F. Feika reportedly denied an attempt by defense counsel Cllr. Jimmy Saah Bombo to make a submission to the court.

Judge Feika indicated that the submission was not appropriate at that stage of the proceedings and should have been made earlier.

The ruling placed the defense lawyer’s request outside the court’s preferred procedural timeline immediately before the parties presented their final arguments to the jury.

What reportedly astonished observers was Judge Feika’s assertion, made even before the conclusion of final arguments and the jury’s deliberations, that the lawyer would take the matter to the Supreme Court.

That statement, as described by courtroom observers, raised questions about the timing and context of the judge’s remarks, particularly because the jury had yet to deliberate and return its decisions.

Whether the exchange will become the subject of a formal challenge remains to be established. Any assessment of the judge’s conduct or the legal significance of the denied submission would require the precise wording of the request, the court’s ruling, and the applicable procedural rules.

Nevertheless, the episode added another point of contention to an already consequential trial, with the defense and prosecution preparing to conclude their presentations in a case carrying significant public interest.

Jurors Deliberate Behind Masks As High-Profile Defendants Await Outcome

Before the trial proceedings began, jurors were reportedly observed wearing masks intended to conceal their identities.

The arrangement underscored the sensitivity surrounding a prosecution involving former government officials and allegations concerning the handling of humanitarian assistance.

The jury was tasked with evaluating charges that included theft of property, economic sabotage, misapplication of entrusted property, abuse of office and criminal conspiracy.

At the heart of the prosecution’s case was the handling of 29,412 bags of rice donated by Saudi Arabia, reportedly valued at approximately US$500,000 and intended to assist disaster-affected and vulnerable Liberians.

The prosecution alleged that substantial quantities of the donated rice were improperly handled, diverted or misapplied. The defense, however, challenged aspects of the prosecution’s account, including the circumstances surrounding transfers between government institutions and the evidence linking individual defendants to criminal conduct.

The competing accounts placed the jury in the position of determining whether the evidence established each charge against each defendant.

Kemayah Reported Guilty Despite Dissenting Jurors

Former Foreign Affairs Minister Dee-Maxwell Saah Kemayah was reported guilty on all five charges: theft of property, economic sabotage, misapplication of entrusted property, abuse of office and criminal conspiracy.

The reported vote breakdown indicates that four of the 12 jurors voted not guilty on theft of property, four opposed a guilty finding on economic sabotage, three voted not guilty on misapplication of entrusted property, and four voted not guilty on criminal conspiracy. All 12 reportedly voted guilty on abuse of office.

These figures suggest substantial disagreement within the jury despite the reported guilty outcomes.

The precise legal status of each finding, including whether the verdicts satisfied the applicable requirements for a valid jury verdict, should be confirmed against the official court record.

Kemayah had maintained his defense during the trial, with the proceedings examining his role in facilitating the Saudi donation and the subsequent movement and distribution of the rice.

The outcome, if confirmed by the court record, would represent a major development for a former senior diplomat whose involvement in securing the donation placed him at the center of the controversy.

Sirleaf And Kollie Reported Guilty On All Five Charges

Former Internal Affairs Minister Varney A. Sirleaf was reported guilty on all five charges.

Augustine Kollie, identified in the proceedings as an NDMA official responsible for disaster victims, was likewise reported guilty on all five charges.

The findings against the two officials are particularly significant because the NDMA was central to the management of the donated commodity and the humanitarian response for which it was intended.

During the trial, Sirleaf disputed allegations concerning Kemayah’s role in directing the transfer of rice from the NDMA to the GSA. He maintained that the movement of the commodity resulted from an inter-agency decision and cited storage and inventory concerns.

The jury’s reported decision indicates that the prosecution’s allegations against Sirleaf resulted in guilty findings on each of the five listed charges. The court record will be necessary to establish the precise verdict language and any associated vote counts.

Kollie’s reported guilty verdicts similarly place the NDMA’s handling of the donated rice at the center of the case’s outcome.

Henry Williams And Memmie Larmie Reported Not Guilty

Former NDMA Executive Director Henry O. Williams was reported not guilty on all five charges.

The charges were theft of property, economic sabotage, misapplication of entrusted property, abuse of office and criminal conspiracy.

Memmie Davie Larmie was also reported not guilty on all five charges.

The outcomes demonstrate that the jury did not reach identical conclusions about all the officials whose names were associated with the handling of the Saudi donation.

Williams’ reported acquittals are particularly notable given his position at the NDMA, the agency central to the custody and distribution of the rice.

His defense had to be considered against allegations involving the movement of the commodity, institutional responsibilities and the conduct attributed to individual officials.

The reported not-guilty findings should not be conflated with the outcomes for other defendants. Each accused person’s criminal responsibility must be assessed separately according to the verdicts entered in the record.

Bility Reported Guilty; Siafa Receives Mixed Findings

Former GSA Deputy Director Edris Idris Bility was reported guilty on all five charges.

Bility had previously presented gate passes that he said documented the release of 5,000 bags of rice intended for Gbarnga, arguing that the commodity left the GSA warehouse through a documented process rather than being secretly removed.

The jury’s reported findings mark a significant development in the allegations surrounding the movement and documentation of the rice.

Wayne Siafa, identified in the supplied notes as a former chief executive, received a different set of reported outcomes.

He was reported not guilty of theft of property, economic sabotage and criminal conspiracy, but guilty of misapplication of entrusted property. The abuse-of-office charge reportedly ended in a hung verdict.

That mixed result illustrates the importance of distinguishing individual charges rather than describing every defendant as either wholly guilty or wholly acquitted.

A hung verdict does not constitute a finding of guilt or innocence on the unresolved charge. Its legal consequences depend on the court’s subsequent proceedings and applicable law.

Achievgo Doe And Thelma Duncan Sawyer: Inconclusive Votes On Some Charges

Achievgo Doe and former Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Thelma Duncan Sawyer were reported not guilty on several charges, with inconclusive voting on others.

According to the supplied courtroom notes, the theft charge against Doe was recorded as not guilty, although one juror reportedly favored a guilty finding. On economic sabotage and misapplication of entrusted property, two jurors reportedly voted guilty in each instance, while the recorded outcome was not guilty.

The abuse-of-office charge ended without a conclusive verdict, with five jurors reportedly voting guilty and six voting not guilty. On criminal conspiracy, four reportedly voted guilty and eight not guilty.

The notes supplied for Sawyer contain a similar breakdown: not-guilty outcomes on theft, economic sabotage, misapplication of entrusted property and criminal conspiracy, alongside a hung verdict on abuse of office.

These counts require confirmation because the reported totals do not always account for all 12 jurors. The exact verdicts should therefore be checked against the official record before publication as definitive legal findings.

Other Defendants: Mixed And Unresolved Outcomes

The supplied notes also identify Rosetta Goah as having been found guilty of theft of property, economic sabotage, misapplication of entrusted property and criminal conspiracy, while the abuse-of-office charge reportedly ended in a hung verdict.

Everlyn Gbee was reported not guilty on the listed charges, although one juror reportedly voted guilty on theft of property.

Momolu Johnson was reported guilty on all five charges.

The opening summary also lists former officials and other defendants whose individual verdicts require further verification, including Edward Konneh and Momolu Duckly. The available notes do not provide a consistent, complete charge-by-charge breakdown for every named individual.

Consequently, the final list of convictions, acquittals and unresolved counts should be established from the court’s official verdict sheets rather than inferred from the preliminary information.

The Bigger Question: What Happened To The Saudi-Donated Rice?

Beyond the individual verdicts, the trial has centered on a fundamental question: whether the movement and distribution of humanitarian rice intended for vulnerable Liberians involved criminal conduct, administrative decisions, or a combination of disputed actions and failures of oversight.

The donation comprised 29,412 bags of rice, valued at approximately US$500,000. Prosecutors alleged that thousands of bags were stolen, diverted or improperly handled. Defense witnesses disputed aspects of that account and described transfers between government agencies as institutional decisions.

The jury’s reported decisions appear to distinguish between defendants and, in some cases, between individual charges. That distinction matters because allegations involving a shared government operation do not automatically establish the criminal responsibility of every person connected to it.

The verdicts also leave important questions concerning the unresolved counts and the precise legal consequences of the jury’s findings.

For Liberians concerned about accountability, the case is about more than the fate of former officials. It is also about whether humanitarian assistance intended for disaster victims reached its intended beneficiaries and whether public institutions can account for the resources entrusted to them.

A Consequential Day For Liberia’s Justice System

Friday’s proceedings at Criminal Court “C” brought the Saudi Rice Trial to a decisive point after weeks of testimony, documentary evidence and competing explanations of the rice’s movement through government institutions.

The reported outcomes include guilty findings against several prominent officials, complete acquittals for others, and unresolved charges where the jury reportedly failed to reach agreement.

Judge Feika’s reported rejection of Cllr. Bombo’s submission before final arguments, together with the judge’s reported prediction of a Supreme Court challenge, also warrants careful examination against the courtroom record.

The next critical step is confirmation of the formal verdicts, clarification of the hung counts and any subsequent rulings or sentencing proceedings.

For now, the central message from the courtroom is that the jury’s reported findings were mixed: several defendants face guilty verdicts, others were cleared of the listed charges, and some allegations remain unresolved. The official court record must determine the final legal position of each defendant.

MONROVIA – Liberia’s most prominent drug trafficking and money laundering prosecution entered a new phase this week as several defendants, including a former senior security official, were arrested and sent to the Monrovia Central Prison to await trial.

By Willie N. Tokpah

The arrests followed a writ issued on October 7, 2026, by Criminal Court “C” at the Temple of Justice, ordering Montserrado County Sheriff Major Austine Seinavula, or his deputy, to arrest the 19 defendants named in a grand jury indictment and bring them “forthwith” before the court. Former Vice President Jewel Howard-Taylor is among those defendants.

Who is in custody

The first arrest came late Wednesday, October 7, when Mark Quiah, former Deputy Director for Operations at the Liberia Civil Aviation Authority (LCAA), was taken into custody and sent to the Monrovia Central Prison.

Others followed, including Gerald Foley Smith, former Deputy Director for Administration at the National Security Agency (NSA), along with Jammel V. Jallah, Christian L. Nyantee, Cayce L. Nelson, Albenigo Janior and a defendant identified only as Sekou. They were brought before Criminal Court “C” before being jailed.

None of the defendants has been arraigned. They are being held pending further proceedings. The writ also requires the sheriff to file an official return showing how each defendant was served.

The scale of the charges

The indictment, handed up by the Grand Jury of Montserrado County, lists 11 offenses. Five relate directly to controlled drugs: unlicensed possession, importation, exportation, and sale, distribution and transportation, as well as illicit trafficking. Three are inchoate offenses: criminal conspiracy, criminal facilitation and criminal solicitation. The remaining charges are money laundering and two counts involving physical objects for lethal use, covering both possession and sale.

Taken together, the charges allege far more than simple possession. They describe an organized operation that moved drugs into and out of Liberia, laundered the proceeds and had access to lethal weapons.

Why the defendants matter

The names on the indictment give the case its weight. The NSA is among the agencies charged with protecting the state from organized crime. The LCAA oversees the airports through which drugs can cross borders. Allegations that former senior officials from both institutions took part in a trafficking network raise uncomfortable questions about whether state institutions were compromised, regardless of what the courts ultimately decide.

The inclusion of Howard-Taylor adds a political dimension. She served as Vice President from 2018 to 2024 and was former President George Weah’s running mate in the 2023 election. The prosecution of a former vice president on charges of this kind has little precedent in Liberia, and supporters and critics alike will watch closely for signs of either political motive or political protection.

A test for the justice system

For the government, the arrests signal that the indictment will be enforced rather than left to stall. Making the case stick will be harder. Drug and money laundering prosecutions depend on financial records, seized evidence, intercepted communications and often cooperating witnesses. They are complex, and in Liberia such cases have frequently been slowed by delays, adjournments and disputes over evidence. How the prosecution handles disclosure, how quickly arraignment follows and whether bail is contested will offer early signs of the case’s strength.

The courts will also be judged on fairness. With high-profile defendants and intense public interest, the pressure for a swift conviction will be considerable. So will the demand that the process be seen as impartial.

What comes next

The defendants are expected to be arraigned before Criminal Court “C,” where they will enter pleas. Defense lawyers are likely to seek bail and may challenge the indictment. Attention will also turn to the remaining defendants, including the former vice president, and whether they will be taken into custody.

The indictment contains allegations only. All 19 defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction, and they are entitled to legal representation and a fair trial under the Liberian Constitution.

Monrovia-Liberia’s housing ambitions are entering a potentially transformative phase, with the National Housing Authority projecting the construction of 15,000 to 20,000 housing units by 2030, even as questions surrounding the Authority’s administration continue to linger.

By Willie N. Tokpah

National Housing Authority Managing Director Florence K. Geegbae made the projection Tuesday, October 6, at the Ministry of Information’s regular press briefing in Monrovia, outlining plans that include partnerships with foreign investors, prefabricated housing manufacturers and several public-private partners.

Her announcement has placed the NHA at the center of one of the Boakai Administration’s most consequential development promises, on addressing Liberia’s housing shortage while confronting the rapid expansion and increasingly congested urban landscape of Monrovia.

But as Geegbae unveiled the scale of the Authority’s proposed housing drive, she offered little new detail on allegations previously raised against her administration, including calls for audits and investigations.

Asked whether she had submitted to an investigation and whether the allegations had been addressed, Geegbae declined to discuss the matter in detail.

She said the Ministry of State for Presidential Affairs, which she identified as her employer, had already inquired into the allegations and that a detailed report had been submitted.

“The Ministry of State, which is my employer, has inquired and we have done a detailed report to the Ministry of State for Presidential Affairs,” she told journalists.

She then indicated that she preferred to move beyond the issue.

A Housing Push With Foreign Backing

Geegbae said the Authority’s long-term projection is no longer limited to government-funded construction.

According to her, discussions are underway with several investors, including potential partners from Turkey and Italy, while another group involved in prefabricated metal housing construction is being considered for projects in Liberia.

She said she recently visited factories, housing estates and construction sites associated with one of the potential foreign partners.

The NHA chief said some investors could contribute thousands of housing units to Liberia’s housing stock, pushing the Authority’s overall projection to between 15,000 and 20,000 units by 2030.

“We should be having close to 15, 20,000 housing units constructed by 2030,” she said.

The scale of the projection is significant for a country where affordable housing remains one of the most persistent challenges confronting low- and middle-income families.

But the larger question now is whether the NHA can convert its growing list of investment discussions into completed, affordable homes.

From 600 Units to Thousands

Geegbae also provided a more immediate timeline.

She said the NHA expects to conclude projects involving 482 housing units and another 600 units as part of its short-term program. According to her, the projects have already passed several preparatory stages, including design, permitting, implementation planning, site planning and soil testing.

The 600-unit component is particularly important because it formed part of the government’s previously announced social housing agenda.

President Joseph Nyuma Boakai announced in his January 2026 Annual Message that the NHA would begin construction of 600 social housing units across six counties.

Geegbae’s latest comments suggest the Authority considers the projects to be moving through the implementation process. The challenge, however, will be translating plans, permits and site preparation into visible houses that Liberians can occupy.

Monrovia’s Housing Crisis

Geegbae also acknowledged the severity of Monrovia’s urban development problems, attributing much of the pressure to continued rural-to-urban migration. She described the capital’s urban environment as increasingly difficult to manage and said the government would have to strengthen zoning and urban planning.

The NHA is working with development partners, including the United Nations Development Programme, on urban development initiatives, she said. Geegbae disclosed that the Authority has also established a portal intended to improve zoning and planning. But she acknowledged that correcting Monrovia’s longstanding planning problems will not be simple.

In some areas, she suggested, correcting existing development patterns could require the removal of structures that do not conform to future urban plans.

That prospect highlights the delicate balance facing the government, expanding housing while simultaneously attempting to bring order to an urban environment that has developed rapidly and, in many areas, without effective planning.

Questions She Did Not Answer

While Geegbae spent much of Tuesday’s briefing detailing what the NHA intends to build, she declined to reopen the controversy surrounding allegations previously reported by local media.

Reports have raised allegations concerning procurement practices, administrative conduct and other issues within the Authority. Those allegations have been disputed and have not, by themselves, established wrongdoing.

Some reports have also called for comprehensive financial and performance audits of the NHA. Geegbae’s response was that the matter had already been addressed through a report submitted to the Ministry of State for Presidential Affairs.

That response, however, leaves the public with a distinction worth watching as the housing program expands: an internal response to allegations is different from independently verified evidence of how public resources, contracts and housing projects are being managed.

That distinction could become increasingly important as the NHA moves from planning to implementation and begins engaging more foreign investors and private-sector partners.

Bigger Promises, Bigger Scrutiny

The NHA’s proposed housing expansion represents an opportunity to address a genuine national need.

But a 20,000-unit projection also means a substantial expansion in the volume of land transactions, contracts, construction activities, partnerships and potentially public resources passing through the Authority.

That will inevitably require strong procurement systems, transparent contracting, measurable construction milestones and credible oversight.

Geegbae insisted that the NHA has the expertise and plans to move Liberia’s housing sector forward.

For now, the strongest test of that claim will not be the number of investors visiting Liberia, the number of factories toured or the number of housing units projected on paper. It will be the number of completed and occupied homes.

And as the NHA moves toward its 2030 target, the public will be watching whether the Authority can turn its ambitious housing blueprint into a measurable national housing legacy, while providing sufficient documentation and transparency to answer legitimate questions surrounding its operations.

For Geegbae, Tuesday’s message was clear: Liberia should prepare for a major expansion of housing construction. The next chapter will be whether the houses, and the evidence of how they were delivered, match the promise.

TUBMANBURG, Bomi County-Mano Oil Palm Plantation has been ordered to pay US$405,000 in damages after the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Tubmanburg found the company liable for negligence that left a 35-year-old motorcyclist with debilitating leg injuries and unable to earn a living.

By Willie N. Tokpah

Resident Circuit Judge Cllr. Ciapha Carey, in a final judgment issued October 5, 2026, found that Mano Oil Palm Plantation’s driver negligently left a broken-down company tractor on a public road at night, without adequate warning signals and in the lane being used by the injured motorcyclist.

The Plaintiff was represented by the Dominion Law Group Incorporated, and the lawyers were Cllrs. Samwar S. Fallah, Lawrence Sua and Attorneys Alpha D. Senkpeni and Henry SayonYaidoo.

The court awarded US$350,000 in general damages, US$25,000 in specific damages for medical expenses, and US$30,000 in consequential damages, bringing the total financial judgment against the plantation to US$405,000, in addition to court costs.

The ruling followed a civil action brought by Isaac N. Quoiquoi of Ballah Town, Grand Cape Mount County, who sued Mano Oil Palm Plantation, its manager and CEO Asa’ad R. Fadel, and other officials and agents over the March 9, 2023 accident.

According to the court’s findings, Quoiquoi was riding his motorcycle at approximately 10 p.m. when he collided with a company tractor that had reportedly broken down and was left unattended on the roadway.

The court found the circumstances particularly troubling because the tractor had allegedly been left without reflective warning signals and on the opposite lane, creating a serious hazard for motorists using the road at night.

Police Traffic Commander Chief Inspector Mark S. Foyah testified that the police investigation held the plantation’s deceased driver, Nelson Fayiah, responsible for the accident.

The police investigation, according to the judgment, concluded that Fayiah had parked the tractor on the opposite lane after one of its tires came off and failed to place a reflective triangle or other warning to alert approaching road users.

Police subsequently charged the driver under Section 10.85 of Liberia’s Vehicle and Traffic Law, relating to signals to be displayed by disabled vehicles, and Section 10.4, relating to reckless driving.

The court said Mano Oil Palm Plantation did not dispute that its tractor had broken down on the public highway or that it had been left without reflective signals.

The court further concluded that the evidence established negligence.

“The Defendant did not dispute that its driver left the company’s tractor unattended,” the judgment states, adding that the company also failed to establish that reflective warning signals had been placed around the disabled tractor.

A Life Changed Forever

The consequences of the accident, according to testimony accepted by the court, went far beyond the initial collision.

Quoiquoi sustained severe fractures to his legs and underwent multiple surgical procedures at medical facilities in Monrovia.

Medical testimony presented during the trial described the injuries as complicated, including fractures involving the tibia and fibula, while subsequent examinations showed that the tibia had failed to heal properly.

Dr. Senga Omeonga of St. Joseph’s Catholic Hospital testified that despite surgery, the tibia remained unhealed during a subsequent examination.

When asked whether a patient could walk normally while the tibia remained unhealed, the surgeon’s answer was unequivocal, “No, the patient can’t.”

Another medical witness, Dr. Robert Gayflor Mulbah, a Consultant Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgeon and Assistant Professor at the A.M. Dogliotti School of Medicine, testified that Quoiquoi had a complicated fracture and limb-length discrepancy.

The court found that Quoiquoi’s injuries fundamentally altered his life.

Before the accident, he depended on his ability to ride a motorcycle to earn a living and support his family.

Following the accident, the court said, he became dependent on crutches and could no longer engage in his former livelihood.

His fiancée, Agnes Anderson, told the court that the family had been plunged into severe hardship, including difficulty providing food and keeping their children in school.

Quoiquoi himself testified that his five children had been affected by his inability to work and provide for the family.

Court Rejects Mano’s Ama Defense

One of the plantation’s principal defenses was its claim that Quoiquoi’s father, Morris Quoiquoi, had signed an Against Medical Advice (AMA) document and removed his son from the plantation’s medical care.

But the defense’s own evidence became a major point of contention in the case.

Peter Mulbah, Officer-in-Charge of the Mano Oil Palm Plantation Clinic, testified that Quoiquoi was conscious at the time his father allegedly signed the AMA.

Mulbah also acknowledged that Quoiquoi had been living at home and merely returning to the clinic for post-operative wound care.

The court found the defense’s position difficult to reconcile with those facts.

Morris Quoiquoi, who was called as a subpoenaed witness by the defense, denied requesting that Mano Clinic release his son or signing an AMA.

Quoiquoi himself also denied ever being informed about an AMA and testified that his father had never discussed or signed such a document with him.

The court ultimately described the AMA defense as lacking logic under the circumstances, noting that Quoiquoi was already staying at home and returning to the clinic for post-operative care.

The ruling said it was therefore “strange and not logical” for a patient who was not permanently hospitalized to require an AMA merely to remain at home.

Mano’s Police-Investigation Claim Also Collapses

The plantation also sought to distance itself from the police investigation into the accident.

That position, however, was directly challenged by police witnesses.

Moses Fallah, Mano’s Director of Security, testified that he had not participated in the accident investigation. But Police Chief Inspector Foyah strongly disputed that account.

Foyah testified that Fallah and another Mano employee, identified as Otis, were involved in the investigation from beginning to end.

The police officer questioned why Mano personnel would have allowed investigators to use Fallah’s vehicle to travel to the accident scene if they had not participated in the investigation.

He further testified that Mano representatives returned to the police station after the investigation and negotiated for the release of the company’s tractor.

Police Commander Emmanuel Pritchard also testified that Fallah, Otis and an insurance representative were present during the investigation.

The court accepted the police evidence and found that the plantation’s attempt to disassociate itself from the investigation was not supported by the evidence.

‘Respondeat Superior’

In holding Mano Oil Palm Plantation liable, Judge Carey invoked the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, under which an employer may be held responsible for negligent acts committed by an employee in the course of employment.

The court cited a 2022 Supreme Court decision, Guaranty Trust Bank Liberia Limited v. Sie Edward Freeman, explaining that the doctrine allows liability to be imposed on an employer for tortious acts committed by its employees.

The court concluded that the negligence of Mano’s driver was imputable to the plantation.

It further held that Quoiquoi had met the civil standard of proof by establishing his claim through a preponderance of evidence, that it was more likely than not that the plantation’s negligence caused his Injuries.

Damages Must Reflect The Human Cost

In determining damages, the court considered Quoiquoi’s medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, emotional distress and permanent consequences of the injuries.

Judge Carey said the evidence demonstrated that Quoiquoi could no longer enjoy life as he did before the accident and could no longer ride a motorcycle to earn a living.

The court emphasized that general damages in personal injury cases are intended to compensate for injuries that cannot easily be measured in monetary terms.

For Quoiquoi, the judgment said, the consequences included permanent physical limitations, loss of livelihood and profound changes to his family life.

The court therefore ordered Mano Oil Palm Plantation to pay, US$350,000 in general damages; US$25,000 in specific damages for medical expenses;

US$30,000 in consequential damages; and all court costs.

The total monetary award is US$405,000.

The judgment was signed and issued on October 5, 2026, by Judge Cllr. Ciapha Carey of the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Tubmanburg, Bomi County.

For Quoiquoi, the ruling represents compensation for a life dramatically altered by a nighttime collision.

For Mano Oil Palm Plantation, it represents a substantial judicial finding that the company’s handling of a disabled tractor on a public road, and the conduct of its employee, was legally responsible for the injuries that followed.

Monrovia-Five of the 19 defendants indicted alongside former Vice President Jewel Howard-Taylor in a drug trafficking and money laundering case have been arrested, brought before Criminal Court “C” at the Temple of Justice and subsequently taken to the Monrovia Central Prison, where they are being held pending trial.

By Willie N. Tokpah

Among those arrested are Gerald Foley Smith, former Deputy Director for Administration of the National Security Agency, NSA, Jammel V. Jallah, Christian L. Nyantee, Cayce L. Nelson, Albenigo Janior and Sekou, according to information surrounding the court proceedings.

Mark Quiah, former Deputy Director for Operations of the Liberia Civil Aviation Authority was initially arrested late Wednesday night, October 7, and taken to the Monrovia Central Prison, making the number of arrest six, since the indictment.

The development followed a writ of arrest issued by Criminal Court “C” on October 7, 2026, ordering the Montserrado County Sheriff, Major Austine Seinavula, or his deputy, to arrest the defendants named in the indictment and bring them before the court to answer to the allegations.

The defendants have not been arraigned.
They were arrested and brought before the court pursuant to the writ and have since been taken to the Monrovia Central Prison pending further judicial proceedings.

11 Serious Criminal Charges

The indictment contains a range of allegations, including unlicensed possession of controlled drugs or substances; unlicensed importation of controlled drugs or substances; unlicensed exportation of controlled drugs or substances; unlicensed sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, dispatch in transit and transportation of controlled drugs or substances; illicit trafficking; criminal conspiracy; criminal facilitation; criminal solicitation; money laundering; possession and sale of physical objects for lethal use; and possession of physical objects for lethal use.

The allegations represent some of the most serious criminal charges contained in the indictment, which has drawn former government officials and other individuals into the ongoing investigation and prosecution.

Court Orders Arrests

The writ of arrest, signed by J. Amos F. Gbowah, Clerk of Criminal Court “C,” commands the Montserrado County Sheriff to arrest the defendants and “forthwith” bring them before the court to answer to the charges contained in the indictment.

MONROVIA — The long-running trial involving the alleged misappropriation of Saudi-donated rice has entered its final stage, with the prosecution and defense scheduled to deliver closing arguments before the jury on Friday, October 9, 2026, at 8:00 a.m.

By Willie N. Tokpah

The development followed Wednesday’s sitting before Criminal Court “C,” where the prosecution presented its final rebuttal witnesses, bringing the evidentiary phase of the trial to a close.

With no further witnesses expected, the court ordered both sides to proceed to final arguments on Friday.

The court also directed the prosecution and defense to submit their respective post-trial memoranda to the Clerk of Court, outlining the legal authorities and citations they intend to rely upon in support of their positions.

Both parties and their legal counsel have been ordered to appear for Friday’s proceedings.

The transition to final arguments marks a critical juncture in a case centered on the handling and distribution of 29,412 bags of 25-kilogram rice donated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Liberia.

The prosecution has alleged that a substantial portion of the donation was unlawfully diverted, while the defense has challenged the State’s accounting of the rice, its movement among government institutions and the alleged criminal responsibility of the accused.

A Trial of Conflicting Accounts

Throughout the trial, prosecution witnesses sought to establish how the Saudi donation moved from its receipt into government storage and subsequently to various institutions and beneficiaries.

The State has maintained that 25,054 bags were at issue in the indictment after accounting for quantities it considers to have been legitimately supplied, placing the alleged value of the disputed rice at approximately US$425,918.

The defense, however, has questioned the State’s calculations and the evidentiary basis for some of the quantities presented during the proceedings.

A central issue has been the movement of the rice from the National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA) to warehouses operated by the General Services Agency (GSA).

Former Internal Affairs Minister Varney A. Sirleaf, who also chaired the NDMA Board, previously testified that the transfer was an institutional decision and rejected suggestions that former Foreign Affairs Minister Dee-Maxwell Saah Kemayah directed him to move the rice.

Former GSA Director Genera Mary T. Broh, who also testified during the trial, provided evidence concerning the involvement of various government agencies in the movement and distribution of the commodity.

Kemayah Maintains His Defense

Kemayah, one of the defendants, has consistently denied the allegations against him.

Testifying in his own defense, the former Foreign Minister said he did not steal any of the Saudi-donated rice and maintained that his involvement was connected to his role in facilitating the donation between Liberia and Saudi Arabia.

His testimony challenged the prosecution’s characterization of the movement of the rice, particularly the role of government institutions responsible for receiving, storing and distributing the commodity.

The defense has argued that administrative decisions involving the rice should not, by themselves, constitute evidence of criminal conduct.

Prosecution Gets Final Rebuttal

Wednesday’s sitting provided the prosecution its final opportunity to respond to the defense through rebuttal evidence before both sides rested their cases.

With the evidentiary phase now closed, neither side is expected to present additional witnesses when proceedings resume Friday.

Instead, the focus will shift from testimony and exhibits to legal and factual arguments, with each side expected to present its interpretation of the evidence before the jury.

The prosecution is expected to argue that the evidence presented during the trial establishes the offenses charged and links the defendants to the alleged wrongdoing.

The defense, meanwhile, is expected to challenge that conclusion, pointing to what it considers inconsistencies, evidentiary gaps and unanswered questions in the State’s case.

Court Seeks Post-Trial Legal Arguments

The court’s order requiring post-trial memoranda is expected to further narrow the legal issues arising from the evidence presented during the trial.

The memoranda will contain the legal authorities and citations on which the respective parties intend to rely as the court moves toward the next stage of the proceedings, including jury instructions.

For the jury, Friday’s final arguments will provide the prosecution and defense with their last opportunity to directly interpret the evidence and make their respective cases before jurors are instructed by the court and retire to deliberate.

The case has therefore moved beyond the competing accounts presented by witnesses on the stand.

The central question now is whether the evidence presented throughout the trial, measured against the applicable law and the State’s burden of proof, is sufficient to sustain the charges against the defendants.

Criminal Court “C” has ordered all parties and their respective legal counsel to be present at 8:00 a.m. Friday, October 9, for final arguments.

The defendants remain presumed innocent unless proven guilty according to law.

A Liberian court has ordered the arrest of former Vice President Jewel Howard-Taylor, ex-wife of convicted warlord and former President Charles Taylor, along with former security officials, police officers and several European nationals. The order follows a grand jury indictment on drug trafficking and money laundering charges, one of the highest-profile criminal cases in the West African country’s recent history. Howard-Taylor has denied the allegations.

By Willie N. Tokpah

MONROVIA – A Liberian court on Wednesday ordered the arrest of former Vice President Jewel Howard-Taylor and more than 20 others in a sweeping drug trafficking and money laundering case that also names former security officials, senior police officers and nationals of Croatia and Ukraine.

Judge Ousman F. Feika of Criminal Court “C” in the capital, Monrovia, issued an arrest warrant directing the county sheriff to take the defendants into custody and bring them before the court. The warrant follows an indictment returned by a grand jury in Montserrado County, which includes Monrovia.

The defendants face charges including illicit drug trafficking; unlicensed importation, exportation, sale and transportation of controlled substances; criminal conspiracy, facilitation and solicitation; money laundering; and offenses involving objects allegedly intended for lethal use.

Former Officials Named

Besides Howard-Taylor, the defendants include Gerald Foley Smith, a former deputy director of Liberia’s National Security Agency, and Mark Quiah, a former deputy director of operations at the Liberia Civil Aviation Authority. Two senior police officers, Deputy Commissioner Anthony T. Blaye and Assistant Commissioner Wadell W. Kwarbo, are also named.

Foreign defendants include Croatian nationals Nikola Ivancic and Mihovil Vrovac and Ukrainian national Taras Zadereiko. Others named include Srdan Seles, Johnn David Garces and Sheik Bashiru Kante. The warrant lists further individuals known only by first names or aliases and says others have yet to be identified.

The warrant does not set out the specific conduct attributed to each defendant, nor does it say whether any alleged offenses took place outside Liberia.

Arrested at the Airport

The case dates to August, when Howard-Taylor was stopped while attempting to leave Liberia at Roberts International Airport and taken to Liberia National Police headquarters, according to the Justice Ministry. The government also charged three foreigners in absentia for their alleged roles in the network: Ivancic, Vrovac and Zadereiko.

Howard-Taylor has denied the central allegation. “I don’t know them,” she told FrontPageAfrica, referring to the three foreign nationals.

A Political Heavyweight

Howard-Taylor, 63, served as vice president from 2018 to 2024 under former President George Weah, the ex-football star. She entered politics after her former husband, ex-President Charles Taylor, left office in 2003. Charles Taylor was later convicted by an international war crimes court for sponsoring atrocities in neighboring Sierra Leone, and is serving a 50-year sentence in Britain.

The case is widely seen as a test of President Joseph Boakai’s pledge that no office is too high for the law to reach.

Wider Crackdown

The indictment comes amid an intensified government push against international drug networks using Liberia as a transit point. In July, Liberia announced what it described as its largest-ever cocaine seizure — almost four tonnes, with an estimated value of about $317 million. Officials have stressed that the seizure and the case involving Howard-Taylor are separate investigations.

West Africa has long served as a transit route for South American cocaine bound for Europe, and authorities said the July seizure was believed to be headed there.

Next Steps

An indictment is a formal accusation, not a finding of guilt, and all defendants are presumed innocent. Once the warrant is served, the defendants are expected to appear before the court, where bail applications and the prosecution’s presentation of evidence will shape the next phase of the case.

Prosecutors will be required to prove each defendant’s individual responsibility through admissible evidence under Liberian law.