Monrovia – Criminal Court “E” at the Temple of Justice has scheduled a hearing for Monday, November 2, at 10 a.m. on a motion for a new trial filed by Peter Bon Jallah, former National Security Agency, NSA official convicted of statutory rape and kidnapping involving a 16-year-old boy.

By: Willie N. Tokpah

The hearing presents the next crucial test in a closely watched criminal case after Assigned Circuit Judge Wesseh Alphonsus Wesseh Sr., sitting without a jury, found Jallah guilty of two of the three charges brought against him but acquitted him of gang rape.

FrontPage Africa has been informed by court sources that the court has received the motion and will hear arguments on Monday.

Depending on the outcome, the court is expected to proceed with a pre-sentence hearing, followed by the imposition of judgment and sentence, subject to the applicable procedures and any further orders from the judge.

Jallah’s defense is seeking to overturn the verdict, arguing that aspects of the court’s findings are inconsistent with the evidence and that legal and procedural errors warrant a new trial. The motion was filed on October 27, four days after Judge Wesseh delivered the verdict on October 23.

It asked the court to set aside the convictions and reconsider the case. The outcome of Monday’s hearing could determine whether the proceedings move toward sentencing or whether the case returns to trial.

A Split Verdict

On October 23, Judge Wesseh found Jallah guilty of statutory rape and kidnapping but acquitted him of gang rape. The ruling followed a bench trial in which the judge evaluated testimony, documentary evidence, medical findings, forensic evidence, and arguments from both the prosecution and defense.

The three charges arose from allegations involving a 16-year-old boy who reportedly performed paid domestic chores at Jallah’s residence in Monrovia.

According to the indictment, prosecutors alleged that Jallah sexually assaulted the boy on multiple occasions in late 2025 and that a subsequent incident in January 2026 involved the boy being taken to a building in the Camp Johnson Road area, where he was allegedly held for several days and sexually abused.

The indictment also named two unidentified men in connection with the allegations. Those individuals were not brought before the court during Jallah’s trial.

The court ultimately found the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to establish statutory rape and kidnapping but insufficient to sustain a conviction for gang rape. Following the verdict, Jallah was ordered remanded at Monrovia Central Prison, pending a pre-sentence and behavioral report from the Ministry of Justice’s Bureau of Probation Services. The court had not imposed a sentence when the verdict was announced.

Defense Challenged Convictions

In the motion for a new trial, defense lawyer Cllr. G. Wiefueh Alfred Sayeh advances several arguments challenging the legal and evidentiary basis of the verdict.

One central argument is that the kidnapping conviction is inconsistent with the acquittal on the gang rape charge.

The defense contends that the two charges are tied to the same alleged episode of confinement at Camp Johnson Road and argues that the court’s conclusions cannot be reconciled.

The defense also challenged Criminal Court “E”’s jurisdiction over the separate kidnapping charge, arguing that the specialized sexual-offenses court lacks authority to adjudicate that offense in the circumstances of the case.

Another major issue raised in the motion concerns the medical and forensic evidence presented during the trial. The defense argued that the evidence did not adequately establish penetration, which it said is an essential element of the rape charge.

It points to testimony concerning the complainant’s medical examination and to the limitations of the DNA findings presented by the prosecution. The motion further alleged that the defendant did not receive a fair trial.

Among other claims, the defense questions the judge’s handling of telephone records obtained during the proceedings and argues that the court improperly took steps to obtain additional evidence.

These remain arguments advanced by the defense and have not been established as findings of judicial error. Judge Wesseh is expected to consider the motion and any response from the prosecution before deciding whether the legal threshold for a new trial has been met.

Prosecution Presented Extensive Evidence

During the trial, the prosecution presented 13 regular witnesses and six rebuttal witnesses, according to reporting on the court’s written verdict. The witnesses included the complainant, police investigators, medical personnel, and Pascal Bavugirije, a forensic examiner associated with the Rwanda Forensic Institute. The prosecution also relied on DNA analysis involving four clothing exhibits.

Testimony reported during the proceedings indicated that DNA profiles from the exhibits matched Jallah’s reference sample, although the forensic findings did not establish precisely when or how the biological material was deposited.

The defense called eight witnesses, including Jallah, and subpoenaed witnesses from the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection, Orange Liberia, and the John F. Kennedy Medical Center.

Throughout the proceedings, the defense challenged the consistency of the complainant’s account, the interpretation of the forensic findings, and the sufficiency of the state’s evidence.

The prosecution, meanwhile, maintained, during final arguments, that the evidence supported convictions on the charges. Judge Wesseh’s October 23 ruling resolved the trial at the initial level, but the defense’s motion now places the legal sufficiency and consistency of the verdict before the same court for further consideration.

Case History Marked by Delays

The case passed through several procedural stages before the verdict was delivered. Jallah was arrested on January 7, 2026, following a complaint to the police Women and Children Protection Section.

A grand jury subsequently indicted him and two unidentified men on charges of statutory rape, gang rape and kidnapping during the February 2026 term of court.

He was arraigned on June 18, 2026, pleaded not guilty and elected to be tried by a judge rather than a jury. The case was initially assigned to Criminal Assizes Court “A” for Montserrado County before being transferred to Criminal Court “E” for trial.

Proceedings were delayed after the prosecution sought a change of venue.

Following the denial of that request, prosecutors petitioned for a writ of certiorari, but the petition was denied, and the case was ordered to proceed.

The expiration of the court’s regular sitting created another interruption before the matter was reassigned for trial on August 5, 2026. After the prosecution and defense completed the presentation of their cases and delivered final arguments on October 22, Judge Wesseh reserved his ruling for the following day.

The October 23 decision resulted in convictions on statutory rape and kidnapping, alongside an acquittal on gang rape.

Monday’s hearing will determine whether the court upholds its original decision or grants the defense’s request for a new trial. If the motion is denied, the court may proceed toward sentencing after considering the required pre-sentence report and hearing any submissions relevant to the sentence.

If the motion is granted, the case could return to trial in accordance with the court’s order.

The defense has also indicated its intention to appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court of Liberia, although the timing and procedural requirements of any appeal will depend on the court’s subsequent actions and applicable law.

For now, Jallah remains subject to the court’s remand order while the proceedings continue. The November 2 hearing is therefore expected to be a decisive moment because of the defendant’s former position within the country’s national security establishment and the seriousness of the offenses at issue.

The hearing is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Monday, November 2, at Criminal Court “E,” Temple of Justice, Monrovia.

MONROVIA — Lawyers representing two Armed Forces of Liberia (AFL) sergeants dismissed after a viral video showed one of them allegedly assaulting a young woman are demanding their immediate reinstatement, accusing the military leadership of violating their constitutional rights and bypassing established disciplinary procedures.

By Gerald C. Koinyeneh

In a letter dated October 27, 2026, and addressed to Acting Minister of National Defense Cllr. N. Oswald Tweh, the law firm Kailondo & Associates argued that the October 21 discharge of Sergeants Abu S.B. Sheriff and Robert Menyon was unlawful because the soldiers were allegedly dismissed without a formal investigation, hearing, or opportunity to respond to the allegations.

The lawyers are asking the Defense Ministry to reverse the decision, reinstate the two former soldiers, and restore their salaries, privileges, and pension contributions. They have also requested a formal, confidential, and impartial investigation into the incident should the authorities wish to pursue disciplinary action.

The demand places the military’s response to the viral video under scrutiny, raising questions about how the AFL balances discipline and accountability with the constitutional and statutory protections afforded to its personnel.

Lawyers Cite Constitutional, Legal Violations

According to the letter, the two sergeants served the Liberian military for more than 18 years and maintained clean service records before their discharge.

The firm argued that their dismissal violated Article 20(a) of Liberia’s 1986 Constitution, which protects individuals against deprivation of their rights and privileges without due process of law.

It also invoked Article 21(h), which guarantees the presumption of innocence until guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt, arguing that the military’s public action against the soldiers effectively punished them before a formal determination of their alleged misconduct.

The lawyers maintained that the circulation of a video on Facebook could not, by itself, replace an investigation or a disciplinary hearing.

They further cited Sections 7.7 and 7.13 of the National Defense Act of 2008, arguing that although the law provides grounds for discharging military personnel, disciplinary action must comply with applicable AFL regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Section 8.4, which provides AFL personnel with legal protections and safeguards comparable to those enjoyed by other Liberian citizens, was also cited in the complaint.

The firm argued that the military could not invoke the need to preserve discipline or the good of the service as justification for bypassing established procedures.

“The military justice system must not be sacrificed on the altar of public opinion,” the lawyers stated in their letter, warning against what they characterized as “social media justice.”

They contended that allowing dismissals based on viral videos without appropriate procedural safeguards could expose other military personnel to arbitrary punishment.

Viral Video Triggers Military Action

The two sergeants were dismissed after a video circulated on social media showing an altercation involving a soldier and a young woman identified as Blessing.

According to Blessing’s account, the incident began when soldiers pursued a group of boys who were playing football in their community. Her younger brother was among the boys and reportedly ran into their home as the soldiers chased them.

Blessing said she intervened and pleaded with the soldiers to leave her brother alone. She alleged that Sergeant Sheriff began beating her while she was holding her baby.

She said Sergeant Menyon attempted to intervene and stop his colleague but was unsuccessful.

The woman also indicated that the soldiers later apologized and that she forgave them. She reportedly wanted them to face some form of punishment but did not want them to lose their military careers.

Her account has added another dimension to the controversy surrounding the dismissals, particularly as the military’s disciplinary response has consequences beyond the two former service members.

AFL Chief of Staff Major General Davidson F. Forleh condemned the soldiers’ alleged conduct, describing them as “bad apples” within the military and likening them to an “Ebola virus.”

Following the dismissals, the two men were publicly presented, and Forleh reportedly instructed the Liberia National Police to handcuff them.

He also directed that their families leave the AFL barracks and that the former soldiers be taken to an area near the Samuel Kanyon Doe Sports Complex to find their way home.

The measures have raised further questions about the treatment of the dismissed personnel and their families, although the lawyers’ October 27 letter primarily challenges the legality of the discharge itself.

Defense Ministry Asked to Intervene

Kailondo & Associates has called on Acting Defense Minister Tweh to intervene and reverse the decision, arguing that the military should investigate the incident through established procedures rather than impose what it considers summary punishment.

The firm requested a response within 10 working days of receipt of the letter.

Copies were sent to President Joseph Nyuma Boakai, who is commander-in-chief of the AFL; Major General Forleh; and Senator Momo T. Cyrus, chairman of the Senate Committee on National Defense, Security and Veteran Affairs.

The letter was signed by Counsellor-at-Law Sylvester G. Lormie II.

The legal challenge does not dispute the need for the military to address allegations of misconduct by its personnel. Instead, it argues that accountability must be pursued within the framework of the law and that the soldiers should have been afforded an opportunity to answer the allegations before the dismissal decision was made.

The Defense Ministry and AFL leadership are yet to respond.

The outcome could test the military’s disciplinary procedures and the extent to which administrative decisions affecting service members must comply with constitutional due-process protections.

MONROVIA – Liberia’s Justice Minister-designate, Cllr. Betty Lamin Blamo, has pledged that the state’s power to prosecute will not be turned into a weapon against political opponents or a shield for friends of those in power, whether in the public or the private sector.

By Obediah Johnson

Appearing before the Liberian Senate for her confirmation hearing on Monday, October 26, Blamo acknowledged that fear of selective prosecution is widely held among Liberians, and said no case would be prosecuted for reasons outside the law.

“I am not unaware of concerns expressed in the press, at the bar, and in ordinary homes that the prosecutorial power of the state can be sharpened against opponents and [used as a] shield for friends. I take this concern seriously. A case will be brought because the evidence supports it and for no other reason.”

She told senators that while she would advance President Joseph Nyuma Boakai’s policy agenda and remain accountable to him and to the National Legislature, her first loyalty would be to the Constitution and laws of Liberia.

No case lacking evidence would go forward, she said, however loud the public demand for it, and none would be pursued on the basis of political affiliation or status.

“Where the law is applied evenly, disputes end in courtrooms instead of on the streets, and ordinary citizens can plan their lives; where the law bends to power, nothing else that the government does will hold. The decision to prosecute will rest on facts, the law, the standard of truth and the standard of proof, and never on political affiliation, county of origin, wealth or status.”

She vowed not to be a minister who prosecutes adversaries with zeal and friends with reluctance, and said she would recuse herself from any case involving a conflict of interest.

Drug cartels

Blamo said illicit drug trafficking continues to destroy the future of young Liberians, and vowed to go after the importers, traders, financiers and protectors of the trade.

She said her administration would settle for “nothing less” than dismantling drug cartels operating in Liberia, while ensuring rehabilitation for those struggling with addiction.

“Liberia will not be a transit country, a laundering point, or a soft place to do bad business. Our success will be measured not by the number of arrests, but by convictions.”

The test already on her desk

Blamo’s promises will be measured first against the biggest narcotics prosecution in Liberia’s history, a case she inherited and that has already drawn accusations of both political targeting and uneven justice.

In June, authorities seized about 237.6 kilograms of cocaine at Roberts International Airport. In July, about four tons, valued at an estimated US$317 million, were found at a warehouse in Duazon. West Africa has long been used as a transit route for South American cocaine bound for Europe.

On October 7, a Montserrado County grand jury indicted 20 people in the US$317 million case, including former Vice President Jewel Howard-Taylor, who served under President George Weah from 2018 to 2024 and is standard bearer of the opposition National Patriotic Party. She faces eight counts, including drug trafficking, criminal conspiracy and money laundering. She denies the charges and is presumed innocent.

Howard-Taylor was arrested at Roberts International Airport on August 19 and held at the Monrovia Central Prison, the same facility Blamo cited for its overcrowding with pre-trial detainees, before being placed under house arrest on medical grounds.

Her arrest has fed exactly the concern Blamo addressed before the Senate. Weah has called the prosecution bogus and accused the Boakai administration of interfering with justice, and members of her party have warned of “growing public perceptions” that the case is politically motivated. The government insists its cases rest on evidence, not politics.

Critics, including

FrontPageAfrica, have raised the opposite concern: that the state moved quickly against an opposition figure but slowly against others named in the same investigation.

Among them is Mark Quiah, the former deputy director for operations at Roberts International Airport. He was named in a June writ of arrest and dismissed by President Boakai in late July, but he was left off the first charge sheet filed that month, even though it placed him in the alleged scheme, and was reportedly cooperating with investigators. He was among those indicted in October. The indictment also names a former National Security Agency deputy director, Gerald Foley Smith, and two senior police officers, Deputy Commissioner Anthony T. Blaye and Assistant Commissioner Wadell W. Kwarbo, along with Croatian, Ukrainian and other foreign nationals. Several defendants remain at large.

Police Inspector General Gregory Coleman said in July that the Duazon operation was “definitely sanctioned by state actors at the very, very senior level”, but he has named no one. Blamo’s vow to go after the “protectors” of the drug trade will be judged on whether those actors are ever identified and charged.

Her warning about poorly preserved evidence also bears directly on the case. The US$317 million seizure has already been destroyed, which raises chain-of-custody concerns similar to those in an earlier cocaine case under President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, when most of the drugs were destroyed before trial and the case ended in acquittal.

Blamo, who served as Solicitor General under Sirleaf, took over the ministry as acting minister on September 10. President Boakai had removed her predecessor, N. Oswald Tweh, and Solicitor General Augustine Fayiah a week earlier, while the prosecutions were under way.

The Executive Mansion described the move as an effort to strengthen institutions and did not link it to the drug probe. The October indictments were returned on her watch.

The weak link

Blamo identified the hand-over between police investigators and state prosecutors as one of the weakest links in Liberia’s criminal justice chain.

Too many cases collapse, she said, not because the accused are innocent, but because investigations are incomplete, evidence is poorly preserved and charges do not reflect the facts. The result: victims lose faith in the justice system, the guilty go free and the innocent languish in detention.

She promised to continue assessing the capacity of the ministry’s prosecution department and to draw up a clear roadmap to make it more effective. Cases, she said, must be evidence-based and professionally prepared, protecting the rights of the accused while assuring victims that serious crimes will be lawfully prosecuted.

Prosecutors quitting

None of this, Blamo admitted, can be achieved without well-trained staff. Many prosecutors have left the ministry since the government harmonized public-sector salaries, she said.

She urged lawmakers to provide budgetary support to recruit more prosecutors and to raise the pay of those still in service to reflect the risks and importance of their work.

Jailed but never tried

Blamo told senators that the conditions in which people are detained are a measure of the government’s commitment to human dignity.

Although Article 21 of the Liberian Constitution guarantees, among other things, that an accused person must be brought before a court within 48 hours, 2,848 of the 4,125 people held in prisons across the country – about 69 percent – had never been tried as of September 2026, she said. Some have not even been indicted.

At the Monrovia Central Prison alone, about 1,312 of the roughly 1,888 inmates – nearly 70 percent – are pre-trial detainees. Many, she said, are poor and cannot afford a lawyer or bail.

The ministry has begun reviewing the files of pre-trial detainees at the Monrovia Central Prison, an exercise she said would be extended nationwide once she is confirmed. She also called for additional correctional facilities to be built at Cheesemanburg in Montserrado County.

The government, she said, will either prosecute or release pre-trial detainees in accordance with the law. The ministry will also work with the judiciary to expand magisterial inspections, and with public defenders, the Liberia National Bar Association and legal aid providers to ensure that no one stays behind bars for long simply because they lack a lawyer.

“We must also state that the issue of pretrial detention and overcrowding of prisons is an issue that requires policy reform. If someone commits a crime, we can’t just let them go; we have to prosecute them. And so, the issue of pretrial detainees is a serious issue.”

She noted that specialized courts are overwhelmed with cases involving people accused or indicted for non-bailable offenses.

Corruption

Describing corruption as a menace in Liberia, Blamo said the ministry would work with the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC), the General Auditing Commission (GAC) and the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA) to investigate and prosecute those accused of corruption and to recover stolen assets for the Liberian people.

“If we are confirmed, we will pursue matters strictly on the basis of the facts.”

She also promised a crackdown on human trafficking and sexual and gender-based violence, saying the interests of ordinary Liberians would come first in every decision the ministry makes.

MONROVIA — Liberia’s Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in the government’s appeal of a February ruling that ordered President Joseph Nyuma Boakai’s administration to reinstate — or fully compensate — Dr. Dougbeh Christopher Nyan, the biomedical scientist it removed a year ago as head of the country’s national public health agency.

By Rodney D. Sieh

A notice of assignment issued Friday, Oct. 23, under the hand and seal of the court’s clerk, Cllr. Sam Mamulu, directs the court’s marshal, Brig. Gen. Emmanuel T. Nyenkan, to notify both parties that the full bench will hear argument on Oct. 26, 2026, at 11 a.m. at the Temple of Justice in Monrovia. Handwritten acknowledgments on the notice show it was received the same afternoon.

The case, styled The Executive Branch of Government v. Dr. Dougbeh Christopher Nyan, comes before the full court as an appeal from Nyan’s successful petition for a writ of prohibition. People familiar with the case confirmed to FrontPageAfrica that the Executive filed the appeal against the Feb. 16, 2026, ruling of Associate Justice Jamesetta Howard Wolokolie, who heard the matter sitting alone as Justice in Chambers.

The government is represented by the Ministry of Justice. Nyan is represented by the law offices of former Associate Justice Kabineh Ja’neh and Gongloe & Associates, the firm of prominent human rights lawyer Cllr. Tiawan Saye Gongloe.

The notice lists five justices: Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay Sr. and Associate Justices Wolokolie, Yussif D. Kaba, Ceaineh D. Clinton Johnson and Boakai N. Kanneh. Because Wolokolie authored the ruling under review, it was not immediately clear whether she would take part in deliberations.

A year-long standoff

The appeal is the latest turn in a dispute that has become a test of how far a Liberian president can go in removing officials whose terms are protected by law.

The National Public Health Institute of Liberia (NPHIL) was created by an Act of the Legislature in 2016 in the aftermath of the 2014–2016 West African Ebola epidemic, which killed more than 4,800 people in Liberia.

The institute leads the country’s disease surveillance, laboratory and outbreak-response work. Under the NPHIL Act, its Director General serves a fixed five-year term and may be removed only for specified causes — such as gross inefficiency or acts undesirable to the public interest — and only after due process.

Boakai appointed Nyan, a U.S.-trained scientist who holds several American patents for rapid diagnostic technology, on Aug. 1, 2024. During his tenure the institute led responses to mpox, Lassa fever and measles outbreaks, and was designated by the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention as a regional center of excellence for national public health institute development.

On Oct. 15, 2025, Boakai dismissed Nyan and his deputy, Dr. Adams K. Lincoln, and named NPHIL board member Dr. Sia Wata Camanor as interim director general. The decision followed an 11-count resolution from the NPHIL Board of Directors, chaired by Dr. Stephen B. Kennedy, accusing Nyan of bypassing statutory oversight, making unilateral decisions, failing to involve the board in key matters and traveling abroad without informing the board.

The dismissal came after months of publicly aired friction between Nyan and Health Minister Louise Kpoto, whom he accused of interfering with the institute’s independence. Nyan rejected the board’s allegations, saying he was given about 48 hours to respond and was removed on the same day he submitted a detailed written rebuttal. He also accused the board of holding meetings that excluded him — though the Director General serves as the board’s secretary — while still claiming sitting fees. No Director General has completed a full term since the institute was established.

The Chambers ruling

Nyan petitioned the Supreme Court on Oct. 23, 2025, arguing that he had been neither charged with nor investigated for any wrongdoing. Justice Wolokolie held a conference on Nov. 13, 2025, and urged the two sides to negotiate a remedy. When no settlement emerged, she ordered the government to show cause, and heard arguments on Jan. 15, 2026. Government lawyers did not file written briefs, relying instead on the board resolution and affidavits from Minister Kpoto and board chair Kennedy.

In her Feb. 16 ruling, Wolokolie granted a peremptory writ of prohibition, finding that the Executive and the NPHIL Board had failed to follow the investigation and due-process requirements of the NPHIL Act and the Constitution. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2024 opinion in Yealue et al. v. Executive Branch of Government — which held that tenured officials cannot be removed without investigation and a proper hearing — she ordered that Nyan be reinstated or paid all salaries, benefits and emoluments for the remainder of his term, which runs to 2029. The ruling also barred Camanor from performing the functions of the office.

Appeal and stay

Camanor has remained in charge of the institute. In a March 6 statement, the Ministry of Justice said the Executive had exercised its right to appeal the Chambers decision to the full bench, and that under Supreme Court practice the appeal automatically stays enforcement of the ruling until the full court decides.

Nyan’s supporters point to a General Auditing Commission review that reportedly rated NPHIL’s performance under his leadership at 81 percent, compared with 61 percent under the previous administration, and to the institute’s reported receipt in April of a government performance excellence award for 2025.

What is at stake

The full bench may affirm, modify or reverse the Chamber’s ruling. Legal analysts say the decision is likely to shape how Liberian governments treat officials in tenured posts across autonomous agencies — a recurring source of litigation since the Yealue decision. A ruling in Nyan’s favor would leave the government a choice between restoring him to office and paying out nearly three years of salary and benefits; a ruling for the Executive would strengthen the presidency’s hand in removing statutory officeholders on the recommendation of their boards.

The case is also being watched by international health partners who fund much of Liberia’s disease-surveillance system, and who have long pressed for stable, independent leadership at the institute created to prevent a repeat of the Ebola catastrophe.

Monday’s hearing is scheduled for 11 a.m.

MONROVIA – The Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Liberia is hearing a high-stakes commercial dispute between SRIMEX Oil & Gas Company and the Liberia Petroleum Refining Company (LPRC) over the enforceability of an arbitration clause in a petroleum storage agreement and the government’s authority to revise fuel pricing policies.

By Victoria G. Wesseh

The case could have significant implications for contractual rights, state regulatory powers, investor confidence, and the enforcement of arbitration agreements involving state-owned enterprises.

SRIMEX, represented by its President and Chief Executive Officer, Nimba County District #7 Representative Musa Hassan Bility, is seeking a writ of certiorari to review the Commercial Court’s handling of its request to compel arbitration.

The company argues that a presidential directive revising the national petroleum pricing structure undermines the commercial terms of its agreement with LPRC, while the state-owned entity challenges the agreement’s legality and enforceability.

At the heart of the dispute is whether the parties must resolve their disagreement through arbitration or whether the courts should first determine the validity of the underlying contract.

The Disputed Petroleum Storage Agreement

The dispute stems from a Petroleum Storage Agreement executed between SRIMEX and LPRC on September 3, 2025, covering the storage and handling of petroleum products at LPRC’s Product Storage Terminal.

According to court filings, the agreement was followed less than a month later by a directive from the Office of the President revising the national petroleum pricing structure.

SRIMEX, through its lead counsel, Cllr. Jonathan T. Massaquoi, contends that the directive altered the commercial and tariff arrangements contemplated under the agreement, amounting to a material breach of its contractual rights.

On September 29, 2025, the company filed a 16-count petition before the Commercial Court for Montserrado County, seeking an order compelling LPRC to submit the dispute to binding arbitration under the agreement’s arbitration clause.

SRIMEX also requested a preliminary injunction restraining LPRC, its agents, assigns, and privies from implementing the revised pricing formula pending the outcome of arbitration.

The company maintains that the agreement requires arbitration of disputes arising from, under, or in connection with the contract. It argues that the clause should be enforced even where the disagreement stems from subsequent government action.

SRIMEX further argues that implementing the revised pricing structure before the dispute is resolved could cause irreparable commercial harm, including financial losses and damage to investor confidence.

The Commercial Court issued a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo, held a pretrial conference on October 21, 2025, and heard arguments from both parties on whether the dispute was subject to arbitration.

According to the account of the proceedings provided in the filings, the court reserved its ruling on the request for an injunction without granting the requested order compelling arbitration, prompting SRIMEX to seek the Supreme Court’s supervisory intervention.

LPRC Challenges the Contract’s Legality

LPRC has mounted a separate challenge, arguing that the dispute is not simply about interpreting the agreement’s pricing provisions but also about whether the agreement is legally valid and enforceable.

In its 23-count returns filed on October 7, 2025, LPRC contends that the Petroleum Storage Agreement was not executed in conformity with the Public Procurement and Concessions Act, the applicable petroleum laws, and the statutory governance framework governing state-owned enterprises.

The company also questions aspects of the agreement’s historical basis, noting that the document references storage arrangements dating as far back as 1989.

LPRC’s position is that an arbitration clause cannot automatically be enforced if the underlying agreement is illegal or void from the outset.

The argument invokes the legal principle ex nihilo nihil fit, commonly translated as “nothing comes from nothing,” to support the contention that an invalid contract cannot, by itself, provide an enforceable basis for compelling arbitration.

The challenge places the legality of the agreement at the center of the proceedings and raises the question of whether a court must first establish the contract’s validity before directing the parties to arbitration.

Two Major Legal Questions

The Supreme Court’s consideration of the matter raises two central legal questions.

The first concerns the relationship between contractual arbitration rights and the government’s authority to regulate petroleum pricing in the public interest.

SRIMEX maintains that the arbitration clause represents a binding contractual commitment that should be respected, notwithstanding the subsequent presidential pricing directive. Its position also invokes Article 26 of the Liberian Constitution, which addresses the enforceability of contractual obligations and the right to bring actions in court, subject to constitutional and legal limitations.

LPRC, on the other hand, argues that petroleum pricing falls within the government’s regulatory responsibilities and that a private storage agreement cannot override applicable laws or prevent the state from exercising its lawful regulatory powers.

The court must therefore consider whether the government’s pricing directive can affect the parties’ contractual obligations and, more specifically, whether it can prevent the dispute from being referred to arbitration.

The second question concerns the doctrine of separability, an established principle in international arbitration under which an arbitration clause may be treated as legally distinct from the broader contract containing it.

Under this doctrine, an allegation that the underlying agreement is invalid does not necessarily invalidate the arbitration clause. The principle allows an arbitral tribunal, where the applicable law permits, to consider disputes concerning the validity of the underlying contract.

In the SRIMEX-LPRC dispute, the question is whether the arbitration clause can be enforced while the legality of the wider agreement remains contested, or whether the courts must first determine whether the agreement was lawfully executed.

The answer could shape how future disputes involving state-owned enterprises and private commercial partners are handled in Liberia.

Potential Economic and Legal Implications

Beyond the two parties, the case carries implications for businesses that enter storage, supply, importation, and other commercial agreements with government institutions.

A decision requiring arbitration could reinforce the principle that parties must honor agreed dispute-resolution mechanisms, potentially strengthening confidence in contractual arrangements involving state-owned entities.

However, compelling arbitration would not necessarily determine the ultimate validity of the agreement or permanently prevent the government from enforcing a lawful petroleum pricing policy. Those questions would depend on the court’s ruling, the applicable law, and any subsequent proceedings.

Conversely, a decision requiring judicial determination of the contract’s legality before arbitration could clarify the circumstances under which state-owned enterprises may challenge agreements allegedly entered into contrary to procurement, petroleum, or governance laws.

Such a ruling would also raise questions about the extent to which private contractual arrangements can coexist with government policies governing strategic commodities such as petroleum.

For investors and commercial operators, the case underscores the importance of clear contractual terms, lawful procurement procedures, and enforceable dispute-resolution provisions when doing business with public institutions.

A Potential Precedent for Liberia

The Supreme Court’s decision could provide important guidance on the interaction between arbitration agreements, the legality of contracts involving state-owned enterprises, and the government’s regulatory authority.

The outcome will depend on the court’s interpretation of the agreement, the applicable statutory framework, and the arguments advanced by both parties.

For now, the central issue remains whether SRIMEX can compel LPRC to honor the agreement’s arbitration clause while the state-owned company challenges the contract’s validity.

The Full Bench’s determination could influence future commercial disputes involving public entities and private investors, particularly where contractual commitments intersect with changes in government policy.

The case therefore presents a significant test of how Liberia balances contractual certainty, lawful public administration, and the state’s authority to regulate the petroleum sector.

Criminal Court E Acquits Him of Gang Rape; Orders Pre-Sentence Report Before Sentencing

By Gerald C. Koinyeneh

Monrovia — Assigned Circuit Judge Wesseh Alphonsus Wesseh Sr. has found 63-year-old Peter Bon Jallah, a staff member of the National Security Agency (NSA), guilty of statutory rape and kidnapping, but not guilty of gang rape in a case involving a 16-year-old boy.

In a verdict delivered Friday, October 23, Judge Wesseh said he had reviewed the evidence presented by both parties and considered the arguments advanced during the trial before determining that the prosecution had established sufficient grounds to convict Jallah on two of the three charges.

The judge framed his decision around three central questions: whether the prosecution’s evidence justified a conviction for gang rape, statutory rape and kidnapping.

He answered the first question in the negative, acquitting Jallah of gang rape, but answered the other two in the affirmative, finding him guilty of statutory rape and kidnapping.

Following the verdict, Judge Wesseh ordered Jallah remanded at Monrovia Central Prison pending the submission of a pre-sentence and behavioral report by the Bureau of Probation Services at the Ministry of Justice.

The judge directed the clerk of court to communicate with the probation authorities to ensure that the report is made available as soon as possible to assist the court in determining the appropriate sentence.

Judge Identifies Three Decisive Questions

In his ruling, Judge Wesseh said the court had examined the facts and circumstances contained in the evidence presented at trial before identifying three issues that were decisive to the case.

On the gang rape charge, the judge concluded that the prosecution’s evidence did not provide sufficient and reasonable grounds to convict Jallah. He consequently declared the defendant not guilty and acquitted him of that charge.

However, on statutory rape, the judge found that the evidence presented by the prosecution provided sufficient grounds for conviction.

He reached a similar conclusion on the kidnapping charge, finding Jallah guilty on that count as well.

The ruling represents a split decision in a case that involved allegations of repeated sexual abuse of a minor and the alleged confinement of the complainant for several days.

Indictment Details Alleged Repeated Abuse

According to the indictment summarized in the court’s verdict, Jallah and two unidentified men were indicted by the Montserrado County Grand Jury during the February 2026 Term of Court for gang rape, statutory rape and kidnapping.

The indictment alleged that Jallah and the two other men acted individually and jointly in sexually abusing the complainant on multiple occasions.

It further stated that the complainant, who was 16 at the time of the alleged incidents, lived in the Airfield Shark Community in Monrovia and regularly visited Jallah’s residence to perform domestic work for which he received compensation.

The indictment alleged that on November 29 and December 24, 2025, Jallah lured the boy to his residence in the Sharks Community of Airfield Sinkor, where he allegedly sexually assaulted him.

The most serious allegations concerned an incident said to have occurred on January 1, 2026, after the boy participated in a community football league at the Kpelle Town football field.

According to the indictment, the boy encountered Jallah near his residence after the game. Jallah allegedly offered to purchase football boots for him and instructed him to return home to bathe before accompanying him.

The indictment alleged that the two subsequently travelled by car to a building in the Camp Johnson Road area of downtown Monrovia, where the boy was allegedly held for three days and sexually abused by Jallah and the two unidentified men.

It further alleged that on January 3, 2026, at about 10 p.m., the boy was concealed at the back of Jallah’s vehicle and abandoned along 15th Street in Sinkor.

The complainant was reportedly rescued by private security guards, who alerted his parents. His mother and other relatives subsequently took him to the John F. Kennedy Medical Center for medical examinations.

These details formed part of the allegations contained in the indictment and should not be interpreted as separate findings by the court unless expressly established in the judge’s ruling.

Case Faced Procedural Delays

The court’s verdict also outlined the procedural history of the case, which experienced several delays before proceeding to a full trial.

The case was initially before Criminal Assizes Court “A” for Montserrado County before being transferred to Criminal Court “E” for evidentiary proceedings and a full trial.

Jallah was arraigned on June 18, 2026, and pleaded not guilty to the indictment. He subsequently elected to be tried by a judge without a jury.

The trial was delayed after the prosecution filed a motion seeking a change of venue. Following the denial of that motion, the prosecution petitioned the Chamber Justice for a writ of certiorari, but the petition was denied and the case was ordered to proceed.

The proceedings encountered another setback when the judge previously presiding over the matter could not continue taking evidence after the regular sitting of the court expired.

On August 5, 2026, the case was reassigned for trial.

According to the written verdict, the prosecution presented 13 regular witnesses and six rebuttal witnesses, while the defense called eight regular witnesses and three subpoenaed witnesses from the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection, Orange GSM and the John F. Kennedy Medical Center.

The prosecution’s witnesses included the complainant, police investigators, medical personnel and Rwandan forensic examiner Pascal Bavugirije.

The defense witnesses included Jallah himself and several other individuals who testified on his behalf.

The number of witnesses listed in the written verdict differs from earlier accounts that referred to 12 prosecution witnesses, making the court’s official record the appropriate reference for the final tally.

DNA and Medical Evidence Featured at Trial

The prosecution relied in part on forensic findings linking Jallah’s DNA profile to biological material recovered from four clothing exhibits.

However, testimony attributed to the forensic examiner indicated that the findings could not establish precisely when or how the biological material was deposited.

The defense challenged the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence, pointing to alleged inconsistencies in the complainant’s account and limitations in the medical and forensic findings.

Medical evidence also featured prominently in the proceedings. Earlier accounts of the trial referenced a John F. Kennedy Medical Center report that reportedly found no visible signs of anal trauma, while the parties disputed the significance of the medical and forensic findings.

The precise weight the court assigned to each item of evidence should be established from the complete written ruling and trial record. The verdict provided identifies the court’s conclusions on the three charges but does not detail its assessment of every witness or exhibit.

Prosecution and Defense Clash in Final Arguments

During final arguments on Thursday, October 22, prosecution lawyer Cllr. Calvin H. Momolu urged Judge Wesseh to convict Jallah, maintaining that the evidence presented during the trial supported the charges.

Defense lawyer Cllr. Wilfred Sayeh argued that the prosecution had failed to prove its case to the required legal standard. The defense questioned the police investigation and challenged the interpretation of the medical, forensic and testimonial evidence.

The judge adjourned the proceedings until Friday morning to review the evidence and arguments before delivering the verdict.

In reaching his decision, Judge Wesseh found the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to convict Jallah of statutory rape and kidnapping, while concluding that it did not warrant a conviction for gang rape.

The two other men named in the indictment were not brought under the court’s jurisdiction and were not tried alongside Jallah in these proceedings.

Defense Plans Appeal

Following the verdict, defense lawyer Cllr. Sayeh announced plans to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Liberia.

The planned appeal would give the defense an opportunity to challenge the lower court’s decision before the country’s highest court.

In the meantime, Jallah remains ordered remanded at Monrovia Central Prison while the Bureau of Probation Services prepares the report requested by Judge Wesseh.

The report is intended to assist the court in determining the sentence to be imposed following the guilty verdicts.

The case now enters the sentencing stage before the anticipated appeal, with the court having found Jallah guilty of statutory rape and kidnapping but acquitted him of gang rape.

— Acquits NSA Staff of Gang Rape; Defense Announces Supreme Court Appeal

MONROVIA, Liberia — Criminal Court “E” at the Temple of Justice has found 63-year-old Peter Bon Jallah, a staff member of the National Security Agency (NSA), guilty of statutory rape and kidnapping but not guilty of gang rape in a case involving a 16-year-old boy.

By Victoria Wesseh

The verdict was handed down Friday, October 23, 2026, by Assigned Circuit Judge Wesseh Alphonso Wesseh Sr., following final arguments by the prosecution and defense on Thursday.

Following the verdict, Judge Wesseh ordered Jallah’s remand at Monrovia Central Prison. However, the court had not announced the sentence at the time of reporting.

Defense lawyer Cllr. Wilfred Sayeh has announced plans to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Liberia, setting the stage for another legal battle over the verdict.

The court acquitted Jallah of gang rape. The two other individuals allegedly involved in the incident on Camp Johnson Road were not presented during the trial.

Prosecution Presented 12 Witnesses

During the trial, prosecutors presented 12 witnesses, including the complainant, police investigators, medical personnel, and Rwandan forensic examiner Pascal Bavugirije.

The prosecution also relied on DNA findings that linked Jallah’s DNA profile to biological material recovered from four clothing exhibits.

However, the forensic examiner reportedly testified that the findings could not establish when or how the biological material was deposited.

Jallah had pleaded not guilty to all charges, while his defense challenged the prosecution’s evidence, citing alleged inconsistencies in the complainant’s account and limitations in the medical and forensic findings.

Defense Challenges Evidence, Plans Appeal

During Thursday’s final arguments, prosecution lawyer Cllr. Calvin H. Momolu urged the court to convict Jallah, arguing that the evidence presented during the trial supported a guilty verdict.

Defense lawyer Cllr. Sayeh countered that the prosecution had failed to establish the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense questioned the interpretation of medical and forensic findings, as well as aspects of the police investigation.

The competing arguments centered on witness testimony, medical findings, forensic evidence, and whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the elements of the charged offenses.

With the guilty verdict on two charges and the defense’s announced intention to appeal, the case is expected to proceed to the Supreme Court, where Jallah’s lawyers will seek a review of the lower court’s decision.

This news is breaking. More details to follow.

MONROVIA, Liberia — Liberia’s Supreme Court on Thursday reserved judgment in a case that could determine whether the country’s House of Representatives defied a court order when it expelled one of its most outspoken members, Yekeh Kolubah, in April.

By Victoria G. Wesseh

The case turns on a narrow but consequential question: was the House leadership legally served with a Supreme Court order instructing it to halt proceedings against Kolubah before it voted to remove him? If it was, the vote may have been taken in breach of a binding judicial directive. If not, the House may have been free to act.

How the Dispute Began

Kolubah represented District 10 of Montserrado County, which includes the capital, Monrovia, and was long one of the Legislature’s most combative voices. The disciplinary case against him followed a controversial statement he made about the Makona River boundary dispute, one that many considered provocative, even offensive.

Kolubah was formally notified on April 9, 2026, to appear before the House Committee on Rules, Order and Administration on April 13. He and his lawyers walked out of a later committee hearing after it refused to grant them an additional five days and access to evidence.  

His lawyers then asked the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition, an order used to stop a body from exceeding its authority. Associate Justice Yussif D. Kaba granted the petition on April 16, summoning House leaders to a conference on April 20 and ordering them to stay all further proceedings pending its outcome. The directive was addressed to Speaker Richard Nagbe Koon, Deputy Speaker Thomas Fallah, the House Chief Clerk, the Sergeant-at-Arms and everyone acting under their authority.  

The next day, the House went ahead. Kolubah was expelled by the full House on Friday, April 17, after a resolution was signed by 49 of the chamber’s 73 members, the two-thirds majority the Constitution requires. The resolution said he was removed for acts and utterances deemed unpatriotic and detrimental to the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.  

The Service Dispute

The House says it was never properly served. Its lawyers cited Rule 26.5 of the House rules, which names the Sergeant-at-Arms as the only officer authorised to receive court orders on behalf of the House. Court records show the Supreme Court Marshal instead served the documents on a receptionist and a computer operator attached to the offices of the Speaker and the Chief Clerk.

That argument has already succeeded once. In May 2026, Justice Kaba dismissed Kolubah’s follow-up complaint, known as a bill of information, for improper service, reportedly finding that the House had not been properly served with the writ and stay order. Kolubah appealed to the full five-member bench, which heard arguments on Thursday.

Jonathan Massaquoi, who leads Kolubah’s legal team, told the justices that the validity of service should be judged by Liberia’s Civil Procedure Law, not by the House’s internal rules for handling correspondence.

He cited Section 3.38(9), which states: “Personal service upon a subdivision of the government subject to suit or upon a municipal corporation shall be made by reading and delivering the summons to the chief executive thereof.”

On that basis, the petitioners argued that delivering the order to the office of the Speaker, the House’s presiding officer, was sufficient. A court officer identified as Joshua B. delivered the document there, they said, and a receptionist acknowledged receipt and signed for a copy.

Whether the provision covers the House at all is an open question. It refers specifically to “a subdivision of the government subject to suit” or “a municipal corporation,” and the Court must decide whether a branch of the national Legislature falls into either category.

Did the House Defy the Court?

The justices must weigh the wording of the order, the Marshal’s report of service, the receptionist’s acknowledgment and the legal standing of the office that received it.

Even a clear answer on service may not end the dispute. If the Court upholds the dismissal, it will not necessarily have examined or endorsed the disciplinary proceedings; and a win for Kolubah on service would not automatically prove the expulsion unconstitutional.

Other questions hang over the vote itself. A Bomi County lawmaker has denied backing the expulsion, raising questions about whether the House reached the legally required majority. A media adviser to Speaker Koon also told FrontPage Africa the expulsion took place on April 22, not April 17, before abruptly ending the conversation. A later date could matter, because it would fall after the scheduled court conference.  

The case has become a test of the balance between Liberia’s branches of government. Critics have likened it to the recent standoff over former Speaker Fonati Koffa, which tested the limits of legislative authority. Prominent lawyer Tiawan Saye Gongloe has said the Court’s options include voiding the expulsion, holding House leaders in contempt, or ordering Kolubah’s reinstatement pending a hearing that satisfies due process.  

The Court did not say when it would rule.

MONROVIA — Liberian economist and political commentator Samuel Jackson has appealed to Criminal Court “A” Judge Onesimus Barwon for permission to travel abroad for specialized medical treatment, citing concerns about his deteriorating health as he faces charges in connection with the death of his wife.

By Victoria Wesseh

Jackson was seen struggling to walk on the grounds of the Temple of Justice in Monrovia on Thursday, October 22, prompting renewed attention to his reported health condition.

The economist is seeking medical leave to obtain treatment outside Liberia but remains barred from leaving the country as his legal proceedings continue.

Jackson is facing charges in connection with the March 2026 death of his wife, Ntombi Khumalo Jackson, a South African attorney who was found dead in their Monrovia home.

Jackson told authorities that he discovered his wife semi-conscious in their bedroom after returning home from a television talk show engagement.

Khumalo Jackson, who was born in Gauteng, South Africa, was the founder of NK Attorneys. Her death attracted widespread public attention, particularly after images allegedly showing bruises and other injuries on her body circulated on social media.

Reports indicated that she suffered severe head injuries and required emergency brain surgery.

The circumstances surrounding her death have since become the subject of legal proceedings involving her husband.

Jackson’s request for permission to travel abroad for medical treatment now presents the court with a matter requiring consideration alongside the conditions imposed on him as the case proceeds.

The court’s decision on his request was not immediately available.

MONROVIA, Liberia — A Liberian court will deliver its verdict Friday in the closely watched trial of Peter Bon Jallah, a former aide to the head of the country’s National Security Agency (NSA), who is accused of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old boy.

By Victoria G. Wesseh

Judge Wesseh Alphonsus Wesseh Sr. of Criminal Court “E” reserved judgment after hearing closing arguments on Thursday, October 22. Criminal Court “E” is Liberia’s specialized court for sexual offences, sitting at the Temple of Justice, the seat of the judiciary in Monrovia. The judge said he would rule at 11 a.m. on Friday, October 23.

Prosecutors urged the court to convict. The defense argued that the state had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, centering its challenge on the medical and forensic evidence.

The Charges

Jallah, 63, was arrested on January 7, 2026, and charged by police with gang rape, statutory rape and kidnapping. He has pleaded not guilty.

He served as a special assistant to NSA Director Maj. Gen. Prince C. Johnson. The agency suspended him pending the outcome of the case. His link to the leadership of one of Liberia’s main security institutions has made the trial a test, in the eyes of many observers, of whether the justice system can hold well-connected defendants to account.

Prosecutors allege the boy was abused on multiple occasions between November 29 and December 24, 2025, at Jallah’s home in Monrovia’s Sinkor district. According to the prosecution, the boy did small household tasks there in exchange for money. Investigators further allege that on January 1, 2026, Jallah lured the boy away by offering to buy him football boots, then held him at a building on Camp Johnson Road until January 3. Prosecutors say the boy was assaulted there by Jallah and two unidentified men.

Jallah has denied all allegations. He told investigators that the boy had never entered his compound and that he had no contact with him.

Evidence at Trial

The boy testified in August, telling the court he was assaulted three times between late November and New Year’s Day. The court admitted his police statement into evidence over defense objection.

The prosecution also relied on DNA analysis carried out abroad. In September, Pascal Bavugirije of the Rwanda Forensic Institute testified that DNA profiles recovered from four exhibits matched Jallah’s reference sample. He cautioned, however, that the finding could not show when, how or under what circumstances the DNA got there. Tissue and toilet paper collected from the scene produced a mixed DNA profile from unknown persons that matched neither Jallah nor the boy.

Investigators have also said cellphone analysis placed Jallah near one of the alleged scenes. The defense called eight witnesses, including Jallah himself, before resting its case.

Closing Arguments

Prosecutor Calvin H. Momolu asked the court to convict. He pointed to medical findings that documented bruising, swelling and abrasions on the boy, and argued that the evidence should be weighed as a whole.

Defense lawyer G. Wiefueh Alfred Sayeh countered that the police investigation was inconclusive and that the state had misread the medical and forensic findings. He cited a report from the John F. Kennedy Medical Center, Liberia’s main public referral hospital, dated March 4, 2026, which reportedly found no visible signs of anal trauma. He also cited the Rwandan forensic testimony. He argued that the evidence did not establish penetration, an essential element of the rape charges.

The two sides differ sharply over what the medical evidence shows. Under international medical guidance, an absence of visible injury does not by itself rule out sexual abuse. Equally, physical injuries alone do not establish who caused them.

Verdict Friday

In its formal order, the court said that, having heard arguments, it had reserved its verdict of guilty or not guilty until Friday. Counsel for both sides, the defendant and the Bureau of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which holds pre-trial detainees, were present.

Jallah remains presumed innocent unless the court finds the prosecution has proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt