Monrovia – Allegations of government overreach and human rights violations have surfaced in a high-profile case involving defendants Thomas Isaac Etheridge, Eric Susay, and others, accused of participating in the December 18, 2024, arson attack on the Capitol Building.
By Willie N. Tokpah [email protected]
While the charges — including arson, criminal conspiracy, and illegal possession of firearms — have attracted widespread attention, it is the government’s handling of the case that is raising serious legal and ethical concerns.
The defence team, representing Etheridge and Susay, has filed a motion to suppress evidence in the case, arguing that the government’s actions during the investigation were unlawful and in violation of the constitutional rights of the accused.
Unlawful Search and Seizure
A key issue in the defence’s motion is the claim that evidence against Etheridge, specifically his mobile phone, was seized without a valid search warrant. According to the defence, the phone was taken by government agents without judicial authorization and was allegedly “bugged” by the National Security Agency (NSA).
The defence argues that such actions constitute a clear breach of the law and that any evidence obtained through these illegal means should be excluded from the trial.
In their motion, the defence cites Section 11.10 of Liberia’s Criminal Procedure Law, which allows for the suppression of evidence obtained through illegal searches. They contend that the government’s actions not only violated Etheridge’s constitutional rights but also undermined the integrity of the entire investigation.
Coercion, Torture, and Forced Confessions
Even more concerning are allegations of coercion, torture, and forced confessions levied against government agents. The defence claims that both Etheridge and Susay were subjected to physical abuse while in detention, leading them to make involuntary confessions. Etheridge, in particular, is said to have been interrogated under duress at NSA headquarters, where agents allegedly threatened and physically assaulted him to extract a confession.
The defence asserts that these confessions, obtained through torture, are not only inadmissible but also violate Liberia’s obligations under international human rights law.
They insist that confessions extracted under duress cannot be used as evidence and must be dismissed in their entirety.
A Questionable Search Warrant
The government’s handling of the case is further complicated by issues surrounding the search warrant for Etheridge’s phone.
The defence claims that the search warrant was only obtained after the phone had already been illegally accessed, violating legal protocols that require a warrant to be in place before any search is conducted.
Additionally, the defence raises concerns about the involvement of the NSA in the investigation. They point out that the NSA, traditionally tasked with national security matters, is not authorized to conduct criminal investigations. The defence argues that the NSA’s involvement in this case exceeds its mandate, further calling into question the propriety of the government’s actions.
A Pattern of Governmental Overreach
The allegations against the government reflect a broader pattern of concerning overreach and disregard for due process. The use of torture, unlawful searches, and coerced confessions suggests an authoritarian approach to justice—one that prioritizes punishment over fairness and constitutional rights.
Moreover, the defence argues that the government’s actions in this case reflect a troubling trend in which the protection of political power seems to outweigh the protection of individual rights.
This case serves as a stark reminder of the dangers posed by unchecked governmental power and highlights the risks of disregarding legal and constitutional safeguards in the pursuit of political objectives.
Growing Concerns Over Legitimacy
As the case progresses, questions about the legitimacy of the charges against Etheridge and Susay continue to mount. With each passing day, the government’s tactics and handling of the investigation come under greater scrutiny, further eroding its credibility.
The defense’s motion to suppress evidence has added significant weight to growing concerns about the treatment of the defendants and the government’s apparent disregard for their legal rights.