-For Prosecution
By: G. Bennie Bravo Johnson I
The Monrovia City Court has ruled that there is sufficient probable cause for former Speaker Cllr. Jonathan Fonati Koffa and his colleagues—Representatives Dixon Seboe, Abu Kamara, and Jacob Debee II—to face trial in a higher court.
The ruling, delivered on Friday, June 13, 2024, by Stipendiary Magistrate Ben Barco, comes after a preliminary hearing into a capital arson case stemming from the December 18, 2024 blaze at the National Legislature amid a major legislative crisis.
The lawmakers were charged by the Liberia National Police with multiple offenses, including arson, criminal mischief, reckless endangerment, attempted murder, criminal facilitation, and criminal conspiracy. Over the last few days, the City Court entertained arguments from both the prosecution and the defense regarding the validity of the charges.
Defense lawyers argued that the prosecution lacked direct evidence linking the lawmakers to the alleged arson. They contended that the evidence presented was sourced from third-party devices, not directly from the defendants. “Evidence for conviction must be direct, not from a third party,” they argued, urging the court to dismiss the charges.
In contrast, the prosecution maintained that the evidence is credible and sufficiently connects the defendants to the crime, urging the court to allow the matter to proceed to trial. On Thursday, June 12, 2025, Magistrate Barco ruled on a motion by the defense to quash the evidence, which they claimed was obtained through improper means, including searches and seizures involving individuals not on trial.
However, the court noted that the evidence in question had already been testified to, marked, and admitted into the record without any objection from the defense at the time. The prosecution used this procedural lapse to argue that the defense had effectively waived its right to challenge the evidence, citing a “waiver of laches.”
In his ruling, Magistrate Barco denied the defense motion, stating: “When the evidence has been testified to, there is no way the court can revert its decision.”
As a result, the case has been transferred to Criminal Court ‘A’ for full trial proceedings.
