Proceedings in the ongoing National Joint Security (NJS) funds trial intensified on Monday, May 4, 2026, at Criminal Court “C” as prosecutors and jurors subjected former Solicitor General and Acting Minister of Justice, Cllr. Nyanti Tuan, to rigorous questioning over procedures, authority, and alleged financial irregularities tied to more than L$1 billion and US$500,000 reportedly disbursed for national security operations.
The day’s session was dominated by sharp exchanges, sustained objections, and repeated interventions from Presiding Judge Ousman F. Feika, as prosecution lawyers pressed Tuan on chain-of-command decisions, the legality of security fund authorizations, and inconsistencies in testimonies already provided by key defendants.
The prosecution opened its cross-examination by probing Tuan’s interactions with Co-Defendant Jefferson Karmoh. Tuan confirmed meeting Karmoh twice between July and September 2023 claims Karmoh previously denied on the stand.
Asked to specify dates, Tuan admitted uncertainty, noting only that the July meeting occurred “between July 15 and 19.” Prosecutors then shifted to the contentious letter directing the transfer of US$6.2 million through the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA).
When asked who instructed him to issue the letter, Tuan replied: “Mr. Karmoh informed me of the availability of funds for the NJS and asked that I write the letter. Since this was an NSC matter and military delay is dangerous, I wrote the letter and Cc’d him.”
Questions over whether his acting authority legally permitted him to assume full control of Joint Security functions prompted defense objections, with Judge Feika sustaining them on grounds of “invading the province of the court.”
Prosecutors also pressed Tuan on whether the Joint Security received the funds? Cllr. Tuan maintained: “There is no information showing that the money was not received. If it had not been received, the Joint Security would have complained, but none of that happened.”
However, attempts by prosecutors to compare his statement with earlier testimony from former AFL Chief of Staff, Maj./Gen. Prince C. Johnson III (Ret.), who denied knowledge of the funds, were blocked by the court.
Jurors later questioned whether Tuan ever took the oath required for NJS participation. He responded that no Joint Security meetings occurred during his time as Acting Minister, and therefore no oath was administered.
Prosecutors challenged the legality of his actions, including whether emergencies justifying the US$6.2 million transfer were foreseeable. The Court sustained defense objections, terming the question hypothetical.
When asked whether instructions from Karmoh to write the FIA letter were oral or written, Tuan said, “Security matters are confidential. He is alive; ask him.” Prosecution asked whether Tuan contacted the Minister of Finance to facilitate the transfer; he argued that standard government procedures do not always apply to NJS operations.
Jurors questioned Tuan extensively on procedural issues surrounding NSC/NJS operations, including whether the NJS has regular meetings, whether the oath of admission is mandatory, and whether he ever officially chaired the NJS during emergencies? But Tuan insisted that the NJS meets only during emergencies and that no meeting occurred during his acting tenure.
Jurors also sought clarity on the contradiction between his assertions and the AFL Chief of Staff’s testimony denying awareness of the funds. The Court sustained objections, preventing further elaboration. After a heated exchange in which Tuan described the charges against him as “bogus.” Prosecutors filed a formal notice of rebuttal, signaling plans to challenge his claims in upcoming proceedings.
The NJS funds trial, centered on the alleged mishandling and wrongful transfer of millions during the tenure of former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah, continues this week as the court prepares to hear additional testimony and the prosecution’s anticipated rebuttal witnesses.
