NATIONAL NEWS
MONROVIA – Margibi County Senator Nathaniel Farlo McGill has strongly criticized a recent court ruling compelling the Clar Weah Foundation to produce evidence against itself, describing the decision as a “travesty of justice” and a direct threat to Liberia’s constitutional order.
In a sharply worded statement, Senator McGill argued that the ruling violates protections guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Liberia, which prohibits compelling any person or institution to incriminate itself.
By: Sampson W. Weah sampsonwweah7@gmail.com
“These are not optional rules; they are binding constitutional guarantees,” McGill said. “No citizen or institution should be forced by the State to produce evidence against itself. That is not justice — it is coercion disguised as law.”
The senator emphasized that Liberia’s criminal justice system places the burden of proof squarely on the State.
“When government alleges wrongdoing, it must investigate lawfully, indict where necessary, and prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt before a competent court. That is the foundation of criminal justice. Courts are not instruments of political convenience,” he asserted.
McGill further accused elements within the judiciary of drifting from their constitutional mandate, reminding judges of their sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution.
“Any judge who deliberately circumvents constitutional protections for political purposes violates that oath. Liberia is not a banana republic, and no judge is above the law,” he declared.
He disclosed that the Legislature would exercise its oversight authority to ensure the matter is fully examined.
“Judicial independence does not mean judicial immunity. Where there is abuse of authority, there must be accountability,” McGill stated.
On the issue of cooperation, the senator noted that the Clar Weah Foundation has indicated its willingness to cooperate with lawful investigations. However, he stressed that cooperation must not come at the expense of constitutional rights.
“Cooperation does not mean surrendering fundamental protections. The Constitution remains supreme, and it must be defended,” he added.
The ruling has ignited renewed debate among legal observers regarding judicial conduct, due process, and the limits of state authority. Analysts are closely watching whether the decision will face a constitutional challenge in the coming days.
