An administrative law judge says Minnesota regulators failed to prove Golden Touch Health Care posed an imminent danger to residents, a finding supporters of owner Sekou Dukuly call long overdue.

By Selma Lomax, selma.lomax@frontpageafricaonline.com

ST. PAUL, Minn. – For two months, Sekou Hussein Dukuly has watched the business he built in the Twin Cities suburbs sit empty, its residents relocated and its licenses frozen by order of the state. This week, a judge told Minnesota health officials they got it wrong.

In a ruling dated October 14, 2026, Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Todnem concluded that the Minnesota Department of Health “prematurely” suspended the three assisted living licenses held by Dukuly’s company, Golden Touch Health Care LLC. She found the department failed to show that the company’s problems posed an imminent risk of harm to residents, the legal standard required for an emergency suspension. Her formal recommendation to Health Commissioner Brooke Cunningham is to rescind the suspension.

For Dukuly and the Liberian community members who have followed his case closely, the language was unusually direct. Reading the judge’s findings, one supporter said, was the first time in weeks that anyone in authority had said out loud what the family had argued from the start: that the state moved before it had the evidence.

The ruling is a recommendation, not a final order, and it does not resolve every dispute facing the company. But on the question before the judge, it was a clear win.

The Day Everything Changed

Golden Touch Health Care operates three licensed assisted living facilities in Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center, serving residents with physical and mental health needs. Two of the licenses date to August 2021, and a third was issued in April 2025. The Department of Health renewed all three earlier this year.

On August 19, 2026, investigators visited each facility. By the end of the day, the department had issued orders immediately suspending all three licenses for 90 days. Golden Touch complied, transferring all 11 of its residents to other facilities.

The department’s reasoning rested on two concerns. First, as of August 12, Dukuly was no longer registered with the state’s licensing board as the director of record for the facilities, and no replacement had been registered. Second, the state Department of Human Services (DHS) had signaled it would withhold Medical Assistance payments to the company starting September 21, citing credible allegations of fraud that it was investigating. The health department concluded that unclear leadership combined with a coming loss of revenue would likely disrupt care.

Golden Touch appealed within days. On October 1, its attorneys from the Greene Espel law firm faced off against two assistant attorneys general in an expedited hearing before Judge Todnem.

A Narrow Question, a Clear Answer

The hearing was limited by statute to two questions: whether there was sufficient evidence of violations posing an imminent risk of harm to residents’ health and safety, and whether the suspension should remain in effect.

The judge began with the meaning of the word that decided the case. “Imminent” is not defined in the statute, so she used its ordinary meaning: likely to happen very soon. Then she measured the department’s evidence against it, and the evidence fell short.

Thirty-Three Days

The department’s first argument concerned the coming payment withhold. But the suspension was issued on August 19, and the withhold was not scheduled to begin until September 21, a gap of 33 days.

“By definition,” Judge Todnem wrote, any concerns resulting from a disruption in revenue were not imminent. Golden Touch had experienced no change in its revenue. According to the findings, company staff did not even know the withhold notices were coming until the investigator raised the issue during the on-site visit.

The judge also noted that the DHS notices gave Golden Touch until August 29 to tell the state whether it would keep serving residents without Medical Assistance payments. By suspending the licenses first, she found, the department took that decision away from the company.

She was pointed about the consequences. The company’s nurse supervisor, Ishmael Komara, testified that Dukuly had financial options to keep the facilities running for six months. The testimony was not backed by documents, but the judge found it reasonable that the company had not locked in financing for facilities the state had already shut down. “It is not appropriate to strip a licensee of its options and then use the lack of exercising those options against it,” she wrote.

The department’s second argument concerned leadership. Minnesota law requires every assisted living facility to employ a licensed director who is registered with the state board as the director of record, and it was undisputed that none was registered after August 12.

The judge did not excuse that. She rejected the company’s suggestion that approval of its replacement director’s application was a mere formality, and she found that the facilities were in violation of the statute.

But a violation is not the same as an emergency. A department official conceded at the hearing that when a facility’s only problem is a missing registered director, the department’s standard practice is to issue a correction order telling the facility to fix it. The judge found the department never showed why this case called for something far more drastic than its usual response.

The company’s explanation for the gap was a leadership transition. On August 13, the day after Dukuly’s registration lapsed, Tabitha Vickie Briggs, a registered nurse who holds an assisted living director license, applied for a Shared Director License that would allow her to lead all three facilities. Dukuly’s brother-in-law and company coverage administrator, Sheikh Dukuly, who also holds a director license, was on site, as was Komara, who holds one too. In effect, Golden Touch argued, three licensed directors were working at or available to the facilities even though the paperwork had not caught up.

Piling On

The department’s strongest card was supposed to be the combination: that a leadership gap plus a revenue disruption together created the danger. The judge was unpersuaded.

She called one element of the department’s argument “disingenuous.” The department had pointed out that staff did not present a six-month plan to stay operational after payments stopped. But the company had not yet received any withhold notice, and the investigator never asked for such a plan.

She also observed that the investigator spoke with Sheikh Dukuly, Briggs, one resident and three unlicensed staff members, but did not ask staff how often they were present at the facilities and did not ask to speak with Sekou Dukuly. And she found it unclear when the department first became concerned about the director issue. The record suggested officials did not view it as an imminent threat until the DHS notice arrived, a notice still 33 days from taking effect.

Her conclusion on the combined theory was blunt: even taken together, the record did not establish an imminent risk of harm to residents.

What the Judge Did Not Say

The ruling is favorable, but it is not a clean sweep, and an accurate account must include its limits.

The judge sided with the department on the underlying violation, finding that the facilities lacked a registered director after August 12. She also noted that the company’s explanation for staff confusion about who was in charge did not fully hold up. One staff member told the investigator Sekou Dukuly was the director, another named Sheikh Dukuly, and none named Briggs.

More importantly, the ruling does not touch the DHS fraud investigation. The judge made no findings about the allegations, and nothing in her report lifts the payment withhold, which is a separate action by a separate agency. The department’s notices of revocation, which are also separate, are likewise outside this case.

And the recommendation itself is not binding. Both sides have ten calendar days to file exceptions. The Commissioner then has ten business days after the record closes to issue a final decision, which she may adopt, reject or modify. Any party can then appeal under Minnesota’s administrative procedure act.

The judge also observed that because no residents are currently in Golden Touch’s care, there was insufficient evidence to keep the suspension in place.

Why Supporters Call It Vindication

For Dukuly’s supporters, those caveats do not diminish what the ruling establishes. A state agency exercised one of its most powerful emergency tools, shutting down three licensed homes without a prior hearing, and an independent judge reviewing the evidence found the agency had not justified it.

That matters in a field where a license is the entire business. An immigrant entrepreneur who spends years building a regulated care operation can see it dismantled in a single afternoon, with residents relocated and revenue stopped, long before any hearing takes place. The expedited hearing process exists to check that power, and in this case the check worked in Golden Touch’s favor.

Members of the Liberian community, which has deep roots in the Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center area, have followed the case with intense interest. In social media posts after the ruling, supporters described it as proof of Dukuly’s resilience and credited his faith. One close friend wrote that “God has the final say,” and asked critics who had celebrated the company’s troubles why they had not prayed for his success instead.

That friend’s post also reflects how personal the case became. When the suspensions were first reported, some in the community reacted with gloating or gossip, a response that stung the family and its allies. The judge’s findings have, for now, given them an answer grounded in the record rather than in rumor.

For a man whose supporters say he has endured the storm with his head up, that finding is not the end of the road. But it is the first time the record has spoken, and what it said was that the state moved too soon.

The Minnesota Department of Health and Golden Touch Health Care did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

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 – The Monrovia City Court has issued a writ of arrest for two men accused of falsely presenting themselves as senior managers of Global Tracking and Maritime Solutions (GTMS) Liberia Incorporated and of threatening anyone who stood in their way.

The writ, issued Thursday, October 8, 2026, by Stipendiary Magistrate L. Ben Barco, names Presley Tenwah and Elvis D. Johnson as defendants. They are charged with Impersonating Official and Menacing.

The complaint was filed by private prosecutrix Aminata Bangura. It alleges that Tenwah and Johnson presented themselves as General Manager – Liberia and Public Relations Executive & Operations Manager, respectively, of GTMS Liberia.

According to the complaint, the two men said they had been appointed to those positions by Sahr H. W. Ngegba, who allegedly claims to be a Director of GTMS Liberia. The complaint states that Ngegba is not part of the company’s corporate structure.

The complaint further alleges that when Bangura questioned the defendants, they warned that “anybody who stand in their way will be destroyed, kill and harm in anyway.” It also accuses them of spreading claims that they have taken over the company and that businesses should deal with them, which it says has harmed the corporation.

The writ says the alleged acts violate Chapter 14, Section 14.25 and Chapter 12, Section 12.35 of the Revised Penal Law of Liberia.

The court ordered Captain Augustine T. Forleh of the Magistrate Police, or his deputy, to arrest the defendants and bring them before the Monrovia City Court at the Temple of Justice to answer the charges. The writ was drafted by Atty. Alex Hawkins S. Younge and signed by Clerk of Court Abel Kalay.

The allegations have not been proven in court, and the defendants are presumed innocent. FrontPageAfrica’s efforts to reach Tenwah, Johnson, and Ngegba for comment were unsuccessful.

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.

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.

Judiciary sources expect a grand jury to indict the former vice president, but her defense says it has received no official word

By Willie N. Tokpah

MONROVIA – Uncertainty surrounded the case of former Vice President Jewel Howard-Taylor on Wednesday. Judiciary sources said a Montserrado County grand jury was expected to indict her, but her lawyer said there was no confirmation that any indictment had been returned.

Sources within the Judiciary told FrontPageAfrica that the grand jury is expected to return an indictment against Howard-Taylor as early as today, October 7, 2026. The specific charges had not been made public as of press time.

Howard-Taylor’s lawyer, Attorney Gbawou Kowou, said the defense had heard similar reports but could not verify them. He said the defense was told that a first panel of special grand jurors failed to reach a conclusion and was disbanded on Monday. A second panel reportedly reached a decision early Wednesday.

“The second set reached a conclusion around 5 a.m. this morning,” Kowou said. “Again, we are hearing this from sources that we believe are credible. We do not have any confirmation to that effect at this point, but we are waiting.”

Neither the court nor the Ministry of Justice had publicly confirmed the grand jury’s decision as of press time.

What an indictment would mean

If returned, an indictment would move the case beyond the criminal complaint and the proceedings so far held before the Monrovia City Court and Criminal Court “C.”

The Ministry of Justice has charged Howard-Taylor with unlicensed importation of a controlled drug or substance. She is also charged with unlicensed sale, distribution, transit and transportation of a controlled substance, and illicit trafficking. Additional counts include criminal solicitation, criminal facilitation, criminal conspiracy and money laundering.

She was arrested on August 19 at Roberts International Airport, where security officers stopped her as she attempted to leave the country. She was then taken to Liberia National Police headquarters and held while investigators pursued the case.

4.2 tonnes of cocaine

The charges stem from a wider national security investigation into an alleged international cocaine network. Authorities have linked the investigation to the seizure of about 4.2 metric tonnes of cocaine, which they estimate to be worth hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars. Three foreign nationals have been charged in absentia in connection with the network.

Prosecutors allege that the network operated in Liberia and other countries. They also allege that Howard-Taylor had dealings with people accused of involvement in the trafficking operation.

Howard-Taylor denies the allegations. Her lawyers maintain that she is innocent and have challenged parts of the government’s case and the way the proceedings have been conducted. They have also stressed that a criminal complaint, an indictment and a conviction are distinct legal steps.

First female vice president

Howard-Taylor served as vice president from January 2018 to January 2024 under former President George Manneh Weah. She became Liberia’s first female vice president after the Coalition for Democratic Change won the 2017 presidential election.

If indicted, she would formally stand trial on the offenses set out in the indictment. An indictment is not a finding of guilt, and the prosecution would still have to prove its case before a court of competent jurisdiction.

Defense attorney Gbawou Kowou says witnesses who testified for the accused were summoned to AREPT’s headquarters and pressured, while the taskforce says the incident was a misunderstanding and denies attempting to influence the witnesses.

By Jaheim T. Tumu
jaheim.tumu@frontpageafricaonline.com

PAYNESVILLE CITY — A confrontation at the headquarters of the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Taskforce (AREPT) has triggered fresh tensions in the ongoing Saudi rice criminal trial, after defense lawyer Gbawou Kowou accused the agency of attempting to intimidate or tamper with witnesses who recently testified for the defense.

AREPT has denied the allegation, saying the individuals at the center of the controversy were not invited for questioning and that its lawyers immediately asked them to leave after discovering that they had recently testified as defense witnesses.

The dispute unfolded Sunday after Kowou went to the AREPT compound and began a livestream in which he alleged that several witnesses who had testified before Criminal Court “C” had been summoned to the agency and were being pressured about their testimony.

Standing outside the facility, Kowou repeatedly demanded access to the compound, claiming that his witnesses were being held inside.

“I’m live at AREPT. Witnesses who testified on our behalf yesterday were brought here and threatened,” Kowou said during the broadcast, describing the alleged conduct as witness tampering.

He later alleged that AREPT officials had locked the facility’s gate to prevent him from entering.

“They have locked the gate. The witnesses are in there,” he said. “If the witnesses are not there, open the gate.”

Kowou specifically accused AREPT Chairman Cllr. Edwin Kla Martin of directing the witnesses to report to the agency after their appearance in court.

The lawyer argued that the witnesses had already completed their testimony and should not have been subjected to further engagement by officials connected to the prosecution.

Kowou Allowed Into Compound

Kowou was later allowed into the AREPT compound, where he confronted officials over the presence of the witnesses.

Speaking to FrontPage Africa afterward, Kowou said the witnesses were members of the Group of 77 and the community of persons living with disabilities who had testified for the defense.

According to Kowou, the witnesses told him they had been threatened or pressured to report to the AREPT office in Paynesville after appearing in court.

He said he subsequently went to the facility to establish why witnesses who had already testified were being summoned by an agency involved in the prosecution.

Kowou was later taken to a police station following the confrontation.

According to the defense lawyer, AREPT subsequently told him that the situation was a misunderstanding.

But Kowou rejected the explanation, maintaining that the circumstances surrounding the witnesses’ presence at AREPT were troubling.

He characterized the move as sinister and argued that attempts to engage or influence witnesses after they had testified could amount to improper interference with the judicial process.

Kowou described the alleged conduct as tantamount to witness tampering, and said the matter should be taken seriously given the ongoing trial.

Heated Exchange at AREPT

Video footage from the scene showed a heated exchange between Kowou, AREPT employees and other individuals gathered outside the facility.

At one point, persons inside the compound instructed Kowou to stop filming and lower his camera. He refused.

“No, I can’t put the camera down so the world will know this kind of criminal act carried on by the prosecution,” Kowou said during the livestream.

As tensions escalated, officers of the Liberia National Police arrived at the scene.

Kowou repeated his allegations to the officers, insisting that a crime was being committed because defense witnesses had allegedly been brought to AREPT after testifying in court.

“A crime is being committed. My witnesses testified before the court yesterday, and they were brought here,” he told the officers.

The livestream ended as Kowou indicated that he would accompany the police inside the compound to further address the matter.

AREPT Rejects Allegation

In a statement issued after the incident, AREPT denied that its officials had threatened, intimidated or attempted to influence any defense witness.

According to AREPT Public Relations Officer Joseph F. Daniels, the controversy arose after a potential witness who had previously provided a statement during the agency’s investigation was asked to appear at AREPT with other individuals familiar with the Saudi rice matter.

AREPT said the potential witness arrived with two people whom he identified as being familiar with the case.

The agency said its lawyers did not initially know that the two individuals had recently appeared before Criminal Court “C” as subpoenaed defense witnesses.

“Upon recognizing them, AREPT lawyers immediately asked the two individuals to leave the premises,” the statement said.

AREPT said the two witnesses were not invited by the agency, were not interviewed and did not provide any additional statements.

The taskforce said it therefore rejects the allegation that its lawyers attempted to influence or intimidate the witnesses.

“If defense counsel has evidence of witness tampering or intimidation, that evidence should be presented to the court, where such allegations can be properly addressed,” AREPT said.

Dispute Comes as Prosecution Prepares Rebuttal

The controversy comes as AREPT prosecutors prepare to present rebuttal witnesses in the high-profile Saudi rice case involving 13 former government officials.

The defendants are facing corruption-related charges stemming from the handling and distribution of Saudi-donated rice during the transition to the Boakai administration.

The trial has attracted public and political attention, with defense lawyers repeatedly challenging aspects of the prosecution’s case and government witnesses providing competing accounts of how the rice was handled.

The latest dispute places the conduct of both the prosecution and defense under renewed scrutiny.

For the defense, the central question is whether witnesses who have already testified were subsequently approached in a manner that could influence their testimony.

For AREPT, the agency maintains that no such engagement occurred and that its lawyers acted to remove the two former defense witnesses from the premises once their status became known.

Judge Wesseh Says Prosecution Evidence Requires Defense Response as Statutory Rape Trial Moves Forward

By Willie N. Tokpah

Monrovia-Criminal Court “E” for Montserrado County has rejected a motion seeking the acquittal of 63-year-old Peter Bon Jallah, ruling that the prosecution’s evidence presented so far is not “wholly insufficient” to terminate the case before the defense has presented its evidence.

In a ruling delivered Wednesday, September 30, Assigned Circuit Judge Wesseh Alphonsus Wesseh, Sr. denied and dismissed Jallah’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, clearing the way for the defendant to take the witness stand as the trial enters a critical phase.

Jallah is facing charges growing out of allegations of Gang Rape, Statutory Rape and Kidnapping involving a 16-year-old male. He has denied the allegations and opted for a bench trial.

The ruling followed the prosecution’s presentation of 12 witnesses, including the alleged victim, police investigators, medical personnel and a Rwandan forensic expert who testified concerning DNA analysis.

The defense had argued that inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s account, questions surrounding an alleged crime scene on Camp Johnson Road, the absence of a woman the victim said he encountered there, medical evidence and the DNA findings created sufficient doubt to warrant an immediate acquittal.

But Judge Wesseh rejected the defense’s position at this stage of the proceedings.

‘Premature’ to End Trial

The court said granting the motion after the prosecution had rested would be premature, particularly because the prosecution had given notice that it could present rebuttal witnesses after the defense completes its case.

The judge emphasized that a judgment of acquittal may be granted where the evidence is “wholly insufficient” to establish guilt, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Republic of Liberia v. Robert A. Smith, 25 LLR 207 (1976).

According to the ruling, however, the evidence already produced by the prosecution provides sufficient grounds for the court to hear the defense before determining the case.

The court also cited Potter v. Republic, 1 LLR 67, and Logan v. Republic, 33 LLR 434 (1985), in addressing the defense’s arguments concerning alleged defects and inconsistencies in the indictment.

Judge Wesseh said that if the defense believed the indictment was defective, it should have raised those objections through a motion to dismiss before trial.

Defense Attacks Crime Scene Evidence

A major component of the defense’s motion centered on the alleged Camp Johnson Road location where the alleged victim said he was taken and sexually abused.

The defense pointed to testimony from Police Officer Lindsey Gould, who reportedly told the court that investigators were unable to identify or locate the alleged crime scene.

The defense argued that the alleged victim’s testimony concerning the unidentified location should therefore be stricken from the record and that the uncertainty surrounding the location created reasonable doubt.

The court, however, declined to resolve the credibility and evidentiary disputes at the acquittal stage.

The defense also highlighted alleged differences between the victim’s testimony and the police charge sheet concerning the dates and locations of the alleged sexual encounters at Jallah’s Airfield residence.

Medical, DNA Evidence Challenged

The defense further attacked the prosecution’s medical and forensic evidence.
According to the ruling, defense lawyers argued that a medical nurse who testified about lacerations and bruises observed in the alleged victim’s anus did not conclusively state that the injuries were caused by rape.

The defense also relied on the testimony of the Rwandan forensic expert, arguing that the DNA examination could not establish penetration or independently classify the alleged offenses as statutory rape or gang rape.

The prosecution countered that it had established a prima facie case linking Jallah to the alleged crimes and urged the court to allow the trial to proceed.

Judge: Defense Must Now Respond

In a significant portion of the ruling, Judge Wesseh said the court could not properly determine the defendant’s guilt or innocence solely on the prosecution’s evidence without giving the defense an opportunity to present its case.

The court stated that the prosecution’s evidence contains the material elements requiring the defense to provide a response before the bench makes a final determination.

Judge Wesseh further referenced Allen Yancy v. Republic, 4 LLR (1935), stating that the surrounding circumstances of a criminal case should be placed before the fact-finder before a final decision is reached.
The court therefore ordered the trial to proceed “unhindered.”

Jallah Ordered to Take Witness Stand

Following the ruling, the court ordered that Jallah take the witness stand as the defense begins presenting its evidence.

One of Jallah’s lawyers immediately excepted to the ruling and announced that the defense would take advantage of the statute governing such exceptions.

The judge noted the exception as a matter of law.

The ruling leaves the central allegations against Jallah unresolved. The court has made clear that Wednesday’s decision was not a determination of guilt or innocence, but rather a decision that the evidence presented thus far does not justify ending the case before the defense is heard.

GANTA, Nimba County — The Gompa Magisterial Court on Tuesday, September 29  sentenced former Ganta City Mayor Amos N. G. Suah to 30 days in jail and fined him US$100 for contempt after finding that his recent public remarks demeaned the court and risked inciting the public against the judiciary.

By Franklin Doloquee / Nimba County

Stipendiary Magistrate Cllr. Sam Nya Harris handed down the ruling. The court also ordered Suah to appear on three community radio stations in Ganta to retract and debunk his comments about the court.

The proceedings were represented on behalf of the Gompa Court by Cllr. Lawrence Suah. Amos Suah was represented by his lawyer.

Background and summons

In a summon dated September 24,  the court had ordered Suah to appear on Tuesday, September 29 at 2:00 p.m. to “show cause” why he should not be punished for statements he made on the Day Break Gompa Program on Voice of Gompa.

The court said the remarks “demeaned, scandalized and lowered the authority of the Court” and could “incite members of the public to defy, resist or violently oppose the lawful order and authority of the Judiciary.”

The bench warned that failure to appear would result in arrest and further legal action.

Public reactions in Ganta

Hundreds of residents and traditional leaders from the Bain‑Garr Area gathered in Ganta ahead of the ruling. Many came out in solidarity with the former mayor. Some chiefs urged the magistrate to settle the matter locally, but the court declined their request.

Our Nimba County correspondent reported that residents crowded the streets as Suah was handcuffed and placed into a pickup bound for Sanniquellie Central Prison.

Eviction dispute and wider tensions

The contempt finding follows wider tensions in Ganta after an eviction last week left more than 15 families homeless.

The eviction was carried out under an order in the summary proceeding of the  Intestate Estate of the Late Musa Toure (administrator Mohammed Toure) vs Mohammed Bility and Mr. Dorley. A motion for relief from judgment in that case is scheduled for hearing on December 20.

The eviction prompted a public dispute between Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay Sr. and former Mayor Suah. Chief Justice Gbeisay defended the magisterial court’s eviction order during an interview on Radio Voice of Gompa.

Suah responded publicly, calling Chief Justice Gbeisay a “security enemy” and urging President Joseph Nyuma Boakai to remove the Chief Justice. Suah also claimed, without offering evidence, that Chief Gbeisay is a citizen of Lofa County rather than Nimba County.

Chief Justice Gbeisay, in turn, accused Suah of selling public or government land in Ganta during his time as mayor and said he would inform the president before any enforcement action against those occupying government land.

The Chief Justice named former Superintendent David Door Cooper and the late Senator Prince Yormie Johnson among those he said benefited from land sales during Suah’s administration.

Developments in court testimony

During related proceedings, former Nimba County Superintendent David Door Cooper told the court that he and others returned a disputed parcel of land in Ganta to Amos Suah, a move presented as an attempt to resolve competing claims.

The matter remains before the courts as judges review documentary evidence and witness testimony.

Voices from Ganta

Residents expressed mixed views:

“If anyone speaks against the courts, they must be held accountable,” said Martha Kollie, a school teacher.

“Leaders should be free to criticize; that’s part of democracy,” said Solomon Tiah, a small-business owner, adding the court should publish the transcript or recording so the public can judge.

“One hour was not enough time to destroy their properties,” a community member said of the eviction, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Legal observers urged due process, noting courts may use contempt powers to protect the administration of justice but must not conflate strong criticism with criminal incitement.

What’s next

The contempt hearing concluded with the sentence and the radio-retraction order. The disputed property case remains scheduled for further proceedings on December 20.

 Meanwhile, FrontPageAfrica(FPA)  contacted the Office of the Chief Justice and the Office of the President for comment, but no official responses had been received by publication time.

Margibi County—The assigned Judge of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court of Margibi County, sitting in its August Term of Court, has sentenced former Liberia Drug Enforcement Agency (LDEA) commander Joe I. Logan, his deputy Lovette L. Flowers, and Nigerian national Tony Obi to 20 years in prison each in connection with the Quita Dolo Kosso drug case.

By: Yawah Y. Jaivey

Judge Roosevelt Willie handed down the sentence Tuesday, following a unanimous guilty verdict returned by an empaneled trial jury against the three defendants.

In his ruling, Judge Willie said the court had considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicable laws, and a report from the Probation Office, which characterized the defendants as recidivists.

“Facts and circumstances and the laws controlling, as well as the report of the Probation Office, which states that these defendants are recidivists, meaning that they have committed crimes against the State repeatedly, the Court hereby confirms and affirms the unanimous guilty verdict of the trial jurors,” Judge Willie stated.

The judge subsequently sentenced Tony Obi, Joe I. Logan and Lovette L. Flowers to 20 years’ imprisonment each pursuant to Section 14.83 of the New Drug Law of the Republic of Liberia.

“This ruling takes immediate effect. The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to communicate with the Superintendent of the Kakata Central Prison to give effect to this Court’s Final Judgment,” Judge Willie ordered.

The sentencing confirms and affirms the jury’s recent unanimous guilty verdict against the three defendants on multiple offenses, including unlicensed possession of controlled substances, unlicensed importation of controlled drugs, criminal facilitation, forgery, misapplication of entrusted property, theft of property, criminal conspiracy, illicit trafficking, and the unlicensed sale and distribution of controlled drugs or substances.

The defendants were among several individuals indicted in connection with allegations surrounding the seizure, possession, alleged removal, trafficking and attempted sale of cocaine seized at Roberts International Airport.

How the Case Began

The case dates back to July 12, 2025, when Quita Dolo Kosso was arrested at Roberts International Airport after arriving in Liberia from Thailand aboard Kenya Airways with a quantity of cocaine.

Prosecutors maintained that 14 plates of cocaine were seized from Kosso, but that four of the plates were subsequently removed, sold, and the proceeds shared among some of the accused officers.

The defense strongly disputed that account, arguing that contemporaneous records and evidence from the initial investigation consistently showed that only 10 plates had been seized.

The defense also challenged the credibility of a key prosecution witness, Mankarpoe Duo, a former LDEA officer whose testimony was central to the State’s allegations concerning the alleged removal of four plates and the subsequent sharing of proceeds.

Duo testified that Logan instructed him and others to alter records showing that 14 plates had been seized to reflect 10 plates, and that four plates were removed.

The defense, however, pointed out that Duo had previously made statements indicating that only 10 plates were seized. He also acknowledged during the trial that some of his earlier statements were false.

Prosecutors, meanwhile, presented evidence intended to establish that the defendants participated in a scheme involving the cocaine seizure and an alleged US$10,000 payment connected to efforts to secure Kosso’s release.

Logan denied ordering the alteration of records or the removal of cocaine. He maintained that the US$10,000 was part of a sting operation intended to identify individuals attempting to bribe LDEA officers.

Flowers likewise denied participating in any scheme to remove cocaine, while Obi maintained that he was merely carrying money to the airport at the request of a friend and did not know its alleged purpose.

Despite the defense’s arguments challenging the prosecution’s evidence and the credibility of its witnesses, the jury unanimously found Logan, Flowers and Obi guilty of the charges submitted for their determination.