NATIONAL NEWS
MONROVIA – Augustine Chea has weighed in on the recent court ruling involving former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah Jr. and former National Security Advisor Jefferson Kanmoh, arguing that Tweah’s acquittal is legally final while maintaining that Kanmoh has strong grounds for appeal.
By: Sampson W. Weah – sampsonwweah7@gmail.com
In a legal commentary issued following the verdict, Senator Chea dismissed suggestions that Tweah could face another trial, describing such claims as inconsistent with Liberia’s criminal law and constitutional protections against double jeopardy.
According to Chea, once a properly constituted jury returns a not guilty verdict, the matter is ordinarily settled and cannot later be reopened through appeals involving co-defendants in the same case.
“A jury acquittal is normally final,” Chea stated, citing Section 3.2 of Liberia’s Criminal Procedure Law, which bars a defendant who has been acquitted from being indicted or tried again for the same offense.
The senator also referenced Supreme Court decisions, including Koffa v. Republic and U.S. Trading Co. v. Johnson-Morris, arguing that double jeopardy protections remain among the strongest safeguards in criminal law.
According to him, even if convicted defendants proceed with appeals, such proceedings would not affect Tweah because he is not before the appellate court as an appellant.
“Once the jury acquitted Tweah, double jeopardy precludes any retrial or appeal by the prosecution. It’s a done deal,” Chea asserted.
Addressing the conviction of Jefferson Kanmoh for criminal facilitation, Senator Chea argued that prosecutors failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Kanmoh knowingly participated in any unlawful diversion of the alleged US$6.2 million linked to the case.
He contended that the prosecution relied heavily on assumptions and circumstantial claims rather than direct evidence proving criminal intent.
Chea referenced allegations that Kanmoh assigned a security code to the Financial Intelligence Agency and communicated information concerning emergency electoral security funding.
However, he maintained that such actions fell within Kanmoh’s official responsibilities and should not automatically be interpreted as criminal conduct.
“Knowledge that emergency funds existed is not equivalent to knowledge that the funds were unlawfully sourced, illegally disbursed, or criminally converted,” Chea argued.
The senator further stated that administrative coordination within Liberia’s national security structure should not be construed as criminal participation without clear proof of unlawful intent.
To support his position, Chea cited additional Supreme Court cases, including Hans Caperhat Williams v. Republic of Liberia, Nyazee Barway v. Republic of Liberia, Jappa v. Republic of Liberia, and Raynes v. Republic of Liberia.
According to Chea, the evidence presented against Kanmoh showed only administrative involvement and official awareness connected to emergency security operations during a sensitive electoral period.
He concluded that the conviction could not withstand the constitutional requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt and insisted that Kanmoh possesses “a compelling and well-founded appeal.”
