By G. Bennie Bravo Johnson, I
The Capitol Arson trial has taken a dramatic turn as legal experts are raising concerns over Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie’s order mandating that defendants undergo medical examination at AMI Expeditionary Healthcare. Experts argue that such a move may violate the Constitution and statutory rights of the accused by compelling them to accept a government-linked facility instead of a truly independent medical institution.
At the Wednesday, September 10, 2025 sitting of Criminal Court “A,” Judge Willie ordered the defendants to be taken to AMI for medical evaluation at the expense of the Ministry of Justice. But constitutional analysts say this directive appears to clash with Article 21(d) of the Liberian Constitution, which states: “No person charged, arrested, restricted, detained or otherwise held in confinement shall be subject to torture or inhumane treatment.” According to experts, compelling the accused to a government-contracted facility risks undermining the impartiality that this provision seeks to protect.
Experts point to the case of a co-defendant who reportedly collapsed after being tortured in custody but whose condition was later attributed to malaria by AMI doctors. “This raises serious credibility issues,” legal commentators warned. “If the same facility once dismissed allegations of abuse, how can the accused now rely on it for an impartial medical evaluation?”
Other analysts referenced the Persons Deprived of Liberty Act of 2014, which affirms that “a person detained, held in custody or imprisoned is entitled to medical examination, treatment and health-care.” They emphasized that nothing in the law restricts such care to government hospitals. “The law provides a right, not a limitation. By forcing detainees into a government-linked institution, the Court risks violating both the letter and spirit of this Act,” experts explained.
Commentators also criticized reliance on the Sheriff’s return, which was based on a report from the Superintendent of the Monrovia Central Prison. They described it as legally weak. “That is hearsay evidence,” experts observed. “The Sheriff should testify to what he personally did or witnessed, not rely on a third party’s statement.”
On the due process side, Article 21(c) of the Constitution is being cited as a key safeguard. The provision guarantees that “every person suspected or accused of committing a crime shall… have the right to be represented by counsel of his choice, to confront witnesses against him and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” Experts argue that denying the defendants access to a neutral medical institution effectively deprives them of evidence in their favor, undermining their constitutional right to mount a defense.
The prosecution has dismissed these concerns, describing motions for independent medical examination as delay tactics. However, they admitted in court that they had no objection to an examination outside of JFK, though they did not specifically endorse facilities beyond AMI.
Judge Willie, in his ruling, defended AMI as “an internationally recognized facility providing independent and professional medical services.” He ordered that the Ministry of Justice bear the costs of the defendants’ medical tests and that results be submitted to the Court no later than September 17, 2025. He also fined several defense lawyers between US$50 and US$100 for contempt, saying they had shown “gross disrespect” by failing to comply with an earlier order to appear at JFK.
Still, experts argue that AMI cannot be seen as independent when it is under contract with the Ministry of Justice and Liberia National Police. “It’s a simple principle,” constitutional analysts stressed. “A medical facility paid by the prosecution’s arm of government cannot be deemed neutral when the same government stands accused of torture.”
Observers note that the defendants had earlier objected to being examined at JFK due to its memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Justice to treat pretrial detainees. Experts agree that this concern applies equally to AMI, given its contractual ties.
Allegations of torture, sodomy, and abuse at the hands of the Liberia National Police and the National Security Agency continue to hover over the trial. The accused say they suffer from blurred vision and urinary problems marked by reddish urine, conditions they insist require evaluation by an independent medical team.
For many legal analysts, the central issue remains whether Judge Willie’s ruling upholds or undermines constitutional guarantees. As they summarize: “When the Constitution forbids torture and the law grants medical rights to detainees, independence is not optional—it is mandatory. Anything less risks silencing allegations of abuse and eroding public trust in the rule of law.”
