Four Senators, including Amara M. Konneh of Gbarpolu County, Gbehzohngar Milton Findley of Grand Bassa County, Abraham Darius Dillon of Montserrado County, and Edwin Melvin Snowe of Bomi County, have called on the Plenary of the Liberian Senate to invite Minister of Justice Oswald Tweh to provide clarity on procedural irregularities surrounding a subpoena issued against the august body.
In communication on Thursday, February 26, 2026, the senators said they have taken note of the Ministry of Justice’s recent application to Criminal Court “A” seeking a Writ of Subpoena Duces Tecum against officers of the Liberian Senate, and of the Ministry’s subsequent Notice to Quash that same subpoena on February 24, 2026.
The Senators said the sequence of events raises serious procedural and institutional concerns that demand the Senate’s immediate attention and a clear explanation from the Minister of Justice, despite the Senate’s acceptance of the withdrawal.
They said the Ministry of Justice Misidentified the Responsible Institution, noting the Auditor General’s Report on the Review of the Financial Management System and Accounting Processes of the Liberian Senate (Period Ended March 31, 2024), explicitly states that financial operations were processed by the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (MFDP) rather than the Senate Finance Department.
The senators said the finding definitively shows that the Senate does not disburse funds, handle payments, oversee IFMIS, and does not produce fiscal outturns, because under the Public Financial Management Act, only the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (MFDP) has authority over cash releases, allotments, IFMIS transactions, fiscal outturn reporting, and expenditure execution.
They said, consequently, many of the discrepancies cited in the Ministry of Justice’s withdrawn petition to Criminal Court “A”, including the differences between MFDP outturns and IFMIS ledger entries, are clearly within MFDP’s operational jurisdiction, not the Senate’s.
“The Ministry’s action was procedurally improper and demonstrated blatant disregard for institutional protocols. The Ministry of Justice initiated criminal court proceedings against a coequal branch of government without prior engagement, flagrantly bypassing established inter-branch procedures. This approach: a) falsely labeled MFDP-controlled financial variances as Senate actions, b) demanded documents from an institution that does not oversee the relevant systems, and c) dangerously threatened the constitutional separation of powers. The subsequent withdrawal of the subpoena confirms the Ministry’s acknowledgment of these procedural errors only after the fact,” the communication said.
According to the senators, the Justice Minister’s appearance is in keeping with the Senate’s constitutional oversight mandate; therefore, they respectfully request that the Pro-Tempore’s office invite the Minister of Justice to appear before the entire body to address the issue.
The lawmakers questioned why the Ministry of Justice would choose to subpoena the Senate rather than MFDP, despite the audit’s clear attribution of financial processing responsibilities to MFDP, and what legal basis justified directing a criminal court subpoena at a coequal branch without prior institutional engagement.
They wonder why the subpoena was withdrawn, and do the Ministry now acknowledge that MFDP is the proper custodian of the financial records and explanations sought? How does the Ministry intend to proceed in addressing audit findings that originate in MFDP-controlled systems?
Meanwhile, the senators said they remain fully committed to transparency, cooperation, and the implementation of the Auditor General’s recommendations and commended the ongoing reforms which led to the Senate’s first-ever systems audit, adding that the Senate’s finance office, under the guidance of a seasoned financial consultant, is working with the GAC to implement the audit recommendations, an audit the Ministry of Justice attempted to use to tarnish the Senate’s reputation.
Nevertheless, the four lawmakers stated that accountability must be pursued within the appropriate legal and institutional framework, with full respect for the constitutional order.
