-Justice in Chambers, Jamesetta Wolokollie Lifts Stay Order on Arson Trial

Former House Speaker, Cllr. Jonathan Fonati Koffa and his Co-Defendants have suffered another “Legal Blow” as the Supreme Court through the Justice in Chambers, Jamesetta Howard Wolokollie has removed the stay order on the Arson Trial by declining to issue the Alternative Writ of Certiorari prayed for by the defendants, ordering the presiding Judge of Criminal Court A’ – Roosevelt Z. Willie to resume jurisdiction over the matters in keeping with the law.

“By directive of Her Honor Jamesetta H. Wolokolie, Associate Justice presiding in Chambers, you are hereby mandated to resume jurisdiction, and proceed in keeping with law, as the Justice has declined to issue the writ prayed for. The stay order of September 25, 2025, is hereby ordered lifted.”

The Chamber Justice action asserts that the Judge Willie ruling that denied the motion prayed for by defense to suppress evidence was in conformity with the law, ignoring the fact that was acknowledged by the lower court judge that that defendants were tortured during the prosecution gathering of evidence and that instruments used as evidence were illegally obtained by the prosecution.

Prior to the lower court ruling, defense filed a petition that seeks to exclude key pieces of evidence submitted by state prosecutors, including an alleged confession and forensic data retrieved from mobile phones. They further accused Criminal Court ‘A’ Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie of wrongly validating the December 18 letter as a lawful search warrant — a move they say contradicts established legal standards.

At the heart of the defense’s argument is a December 18, 2024, letter from a magistrate authorizing the arson investigation.Lawyers claim this letter did not meet the legal requirements of a search warrant, yet investigators proceeded to access phone data before acquiring a proper warrant on January 9, 2025. “The state had already extracted evidence before seeking a valid search warrant,” defense lawyers argued, calling the earlier action unconstitutional.

In addition to search concerns, the defense raised serious allegations of torture and rights violations. They claimed that defendants were held at the National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters for eight days, interrogated without legal counsel, and denied access to their lawyers.

Defense lawyers also took issue with how medical reports were handled in court. While Judge Willie questioned the timing and consistency of some testimonies, the defense pointed to four separate reports that described injuries “highly consistent with torture” — supported by photographs and expert findings.  

Meanwhile, during the ruling, the Monrovia Criminal Court A’ 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. An act that prompted the defense to seek the attention of the Supreme Court.

The Circuit Court on Wednesday, September 24, 2025, admitted to the clams by the defense lawyers however, denied the defense motion to suppress evidence. “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.

Leave a Comment

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *