The Monrovia Criminal Court A’ has dwindled in the web of contradiction after Resident Circuit Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie acknowledge medical findings confirming that defendants in the Capitol Arson case were tortured, yet denied the defense motion to suppress tainted evidence and order the trial to proceed.
The Court on Wednesday, September 24,2025, admitted: “The impression that the Defendants were sodomized, and the impression that the Defendants were tortured.” It also relied on constitutional and international provisions that protect suspects from inhumane treatment, citing Article 21(c) of Liberia’s Constitution and Article 10(1) of the ICCPR. Despite this, Judge Willie declared: “WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion is denied and this case is ordered proceeded forthwith.”
Contradictions within the Judge ruling raise serious questions about the integrity of the court. In his ruling, judge Willie justified the involvement of the National Security Agency (NSA) who has been accused of torturing the defendants as mere “technical assistance” to the Liberia National Police (LNP) because the police fall under the Ministry of Justice. However, the evidence shows that the NSA did not only provide technical support; suspects were interrogated for eight days at NSA headquarters. Such questioning is a core police function and cannot legally be classified as technical assistance.
The ruling also discounted the medical findings by focusing on the cover letter of the physician, which cited time constraints and noted that some defendants denied sodomy. In doing so, the judge ignored the detailed individual reports, including photographs, which concluded that at least four of the six defendants were labeled “highly consistent with allegations of torture.” These were clear and unqualified medical findings that the court sidestepped.
Further contradiction appeared in the judge’s assertion that because the defendants had lawyers with them at all times, no torture could have taken place, since counsel would have intervened. The record, however, shows that when the defendants were taken to NSA headquarters for eight days, their lawyers had no access to them, nor were they informed of their whereabouts. This fact directly undermines the judge’s reasoning.
The ruling also hinged on a December 18 letter from a magistrate authorizing the investigation of arson, which Judge Willie classified as a valid search warrant. By every legal standard, that letter fell short of constituting a warrant. If it had been sufficient, the prosecution would not have sought another warrant on January 9. By that time, the authorities had already accessed the defendants’ phones and extracted evidence. The judge’s classification of the December 18 letter as a search warrant is therefore contrary to law.
Perhaps most strikingly, Judge Willie asserted that if torture did occur, the defendants had remedies under the law but must identify the individual perpetrators because those individuals are entitled to due process. This position overlooks the fundamental purpose of a motion to suppress, which is governed by the rules of evidence. Suppression is not a prohibition against torture but a safeguard ensuring that evidence obtained through illegality and abuse cannot be used in court.
