The country’s fight against corruption and the misuse of public funds entered a critical phase this week when the Supreme Court of Liberia reaffirmed that former Finance Minister Samuel Tweah and several ex-officials are not shielded from prosecution under claims of National Security Council (NSC) immunity.
By denying the defendants’ petition for re-argument, the high court effectively upheld its December 18, 2025, opinion and ordered the case to proceed in Criminal Court “C” in Montserrado County. The ruling removes a major legal obstacle that had temporarily stalled one of the most politically sensitive corruption trials in recent history.
At the heart of the dispute is a constitutional question with far-reaching implications: Can officials who served on or alongside the National Security Council invoke immunity similar to that granted to the President under Article 61 of Liberia’s 1986 Constitution?
The Supreme Court’s answer was unequivocal.
“We further hold, that under Article 61 of the Constitution of Liberia, presidential immunity is personal to the President and cannot be invoked by subordinates,” the justices ruled.
The defense did not dispute that funds were transferred. Rather, they argued that the transactions were executed in furtherance of national security objectives under the National Security Reform and Intelligence (NSRI) Act of 2011.
According to court filings, US$500,000 and L$1.055 billion were transferred from the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL) into the operational accounts of the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA) in September 2023. The defense maintained that Section 11(d) of the NSRI Act allows funds made available for national security to be expended without regard to normal government expenditure laws if deemed essential to vital national security interests.
They also leaned heavily on Section 3(f) of the Act, which describes members as “Trustees of State Secrets,” sworn not to divulge confidential information.
Their argument was twofold—as NSC members or agents, they were protected by statutory secrecy provisions, and that prosecuting them would compel disclosure of national security information, thereby violating their oath.
The prosecution countered that statutory secrecy does not amount to immunity from criminal prosecution, and that Article 61 confers protection exclusively on the sitting President.
The Supreme Court agreed with the prosecution, concluding that the petitioners were not entitled to NSC immunity and that presidential immunity cannot be extended to subordinates.
The Re-Argument Denied
In seeking re-argument, the defense contended that the Court overlooked key statutory provisions, including Section 3(b) of the NSRI Act, which enumerates membership of the NSC and includes the Minister of Finance.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that it had inadvertently cited Section 2(g) instead of Section 3(b) in its earlier opinion. However, it stressed that this error did not alter the outcome.
“That inadvertence does not affect the conclusion of the Court’s Opinion… the petitioners do not enjoy the immunity granted to the President under Article 61,” the Court emphasized.
Under Rule IX of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, re-argument is allowed only when a “palpable substantial mistake” has occurred. The Court found no such error affecting its substantive conclusion.
With that, the matter was remanded to Criminal Court “C” to resume trial proceedings.
Facing trial alongside Tweah are former Acting Justice Minister, Nyanti Tuan, former FIA Director General Stanley S. Ford, former Financial Comptroller D. Moses P. Cooper, and former National Security Advisor Jefferson Karmoh.
They are charged with economic sabotage, Misuse of Public Money, Theft of Property, and Money Laundering. Other charges are Criminal Facilitation and Criminal Conspiracy.
The indictment alleges that between September 8 and 22, 2023, funds totaling over L$1.055 billion and US$500,000 were transferred from the National Security Agency’s account to FIA operational accounts and subsequently withdrawn without proper authorization.
The prosecution claims there was no documentary authorization from the NSC, National Joint Security, or FIA legitimizing the transfers. The defense insists the expenditures were consistent with national security functions.
The Supreme Court’s ruling carries profound implications for justice and governance. According to legal experts, the ruling reinforces accountability. By rejecting the immunity claim, they say, the Court has reaffirmed the principle that public office does not place individuals above the law. The decision strengthens Liberia’s constitutional doctrine of accountability and signals that statutory secrecy provisions cannot be weaponized to shield alleged financial misconduct.
The Court was explicit, “No separation of powers or political question doctrine prevent the courts of Liberia from investigating alleged criminal misuse of public funds.”
This statement may become one of the most consequential aspects of the ruling. It clarifies that national security cannot be invoked as a blanket defense against judicial scrutiny.
The ruling also narrows interpretation of presidential immunity. Article 61 provides immunity solely to the President during tenure. By limiting its scope strictly to the President, the Court avoided setting a precedent that could have extended immunity to ministers and senior officials, potentially crippling anti-corruption enforcement.
Had the Court ruled otherwise, legal experts suggest it could have created a dangerous doctrine of derivative immunity, shielding entire layers of government under the umbrella of presidential authority.
Liberia has struggled for decades with public perceptions of corruption, particularly involving high-ranking officials. This ruling strengthens the hand of prosecutorial bodies such as the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC).
If convictions follow, the case could enhance public confidence in judicial independence, strengthen deterrence against misuse of national security funds, and reassure development partners demanding greater fiscal transparency.
However, if the trial collapses due to weak evidence or procedural missteps, the consequences could be equally significant—fueling skepticism about selective prosecution or political motivations.
The case also exposes structural tensions within Liberia’s national security financing framework. Section 11(d) of the NSRI Act provides broad discretion for security expenditures. Critics argue such language, without rigorous oversight mechanisms, creates opportunities for abuse.
The emerging debate may prompt calls for clearer documentation requirements for national security expenditures, independent audit mechanisms for sensitive funds, and legislative amendments to tighten statutory ambiguities.
This case now becomes more than a criminal prosecution—it is a litmus test for Liberia’s democratic maturity.
Will the judiciary remain insulated from political pressure? Will prosecutors meet the burden of proof?
Will the defense successfully demonstrate lawful authorization?
The answers will shape public trust not only in the courts but in the broader architecture of governance.
By denying immunity and clearing the path for trial, the Supreme Court has drawn a constitutional line that national security cannot be a sanctuary for alleged financial misconduct.
What remains is the trial itself—and its consequences for justice, corruption, and the future credibility of the country’s public institutions.
