In the case involving former House Speaker J. Fonati Koffa and several lawmakers for the alleged burning of the Capitol, state prosecutors have filed another motion seeking Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie of Criminal Court “A” at the Temple of Justice in Monrovia to drop one of the panel jurors. This was the third motion from prosecutors seeking to remove a juror from the panel because of their alleged connection to the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC). State prosecutors’ six-count petition to drop juror J30-9550 claimed that during her selection, she made a false answer to a material question, which cannot be unbiased/impartial if she is allowed to remain on the jury panel.
However, due to the late filing of the application in court, Koffa’s lawyers are expected to respond to the motion today, December 2, 2025. Recently, Judge Willie denied the state attorney’s motion to drop one of the jurors from the ongoing trial of Koffa and others who allegedly burned the Capitol Building on December 18, 2024.
The Judge ruled on November 26, 2025, denying the petition filed by state prosecutors following arguments of both parties in a Bill of Information. “This Court has always stated that it will do everything possible to ensure that this trial is free and fair from all religious, political, or whatever background other than the law; having stated that, the Bill of Information as hereby filed by the prosecution to have the juror rejected from the panel is hereby denied and the juror will remain thereon for proper standing. AND IT IS HEREBY SO ORDERED. Judge Willie ruled.
According to Judge Willie, it was prudent to inquire from the juror who is subject to the controversy to testify in court regarding the accusations, whether the photo is hers, and, if so, on what occasion the photo was taken. Meanwhile, in response to the question, the juror stated that her photo was not on any of the sheets presented by the prosecution. Judge Willie stated that the photos did not, or the person who presented them, did not show any proof that the photos are those of the juror in question.
Secondly, he stated that the photos as presented did not or the person who presented it did not show any prove that these photos are the photos of the juror in question, and the matter is even worse that the juror in question has stated that she is not in this photo; so, what was left with Judge Willie was to base his ruling on what could be the disadvantages of such a photo as referred to by an individual about its authenticity.
“First of all, the photo as pointed to by the prosecution with a pen does not reflect the photo that is on the jury management form. Secondly, this photo could be derived in such a manner and form because the world is now dominantly controlled by AI usage in the creation of social media content, and as the caption of this photo reads, it says ‘Women of Hope for CDC with two others,’ and it has there “Paulita and Abu all the wayyyy..”. The assumption there is that the caption of this paper could be done by an expert in graphic design,” he said.
Dealing with whether or not the juror is a member of the Congress/Coalition for Democratic Change (CDC), Judge Willie quoted Article 11 (b) under the organic law which provides that: “all persons, irrespective of ethnic background…” also, the New Jury Law provides the requirements or elements for the disqualification from serving jury duty; several are indicated herein but one of the fundamental one herein is that, a juror must not prone to biasness or conflict.
He mentioned that the Bill of Information provided to the court did not prove that the juror is prone to bias or conflict of interest and should not be disqualified based on a mere photo.
On Tuesday, November 25, 2025, upon the selection of the empaneled jury, the Prosecution filed a Bill of Information to the court that it had in its possession photos of juror J30-9819, which had several women in it, believed to be CDCians, who were on a campaign program held in favor of Abu Kamara, one of the defendants in the proceedings. The prosecution further stated that keeping the juror in the trial would be tantamount to keeping someone prone to a conflict of interest.
To further substantiate their claims, the prosecution provided to the court two sheets containing several females who are allegedly part of the Abu Kamara campaign team, and among whom it was also alleged that Juror J30-9819 was present. In resistance to that application, Koffa’s legal team argued that the sheets containing photos as presented are flying sheets that could be dotted, and the court should have it thrown out.
Cllr. M. Wilkins Wright, along with others, stated that the sheets containing the photos were not testified to by any witness to authenticate that the photos contained are attributed to juror J30-9819. The lawyers further stated that there is no source from which the court should take the photos.
When the prosecution was asked about the source of the photos, they indicated that they were obtained from a social media post, but defense lawyers argued that, assuming the photo is that of J30- 9819, it is the constitutional right of the Juror to be a member of a political party, which rights cannot be taken away from her.
Prosecution gave notice and excepted to the Judges’ ruling on two grounds- the second issue raised by Judge Willie concerning political lineage was not an issue of the state, since the state acknowledges a person’s right to political affiliation to the extent that the coordinator of the district of a particular party was not objected to.
Secondly, the court failed to acknowledge that while juror J30-9819 indicated that she is not in the photo, she claimed that her mother is in the picture. The court noted the prosecution’s exception made by one of the counsels and ordered the trial to proceed by swearing in the jurors. Prosecution then requested the court to order the clerk to read the indictment to the trial jurors; as such, defense lawyers interposed no objection, stating that reading the indictment to the jurors is a standard procedure provided for by law. The defendants in the case are charged with a string of offences, including Arson, Criminal Mischief, Endangering Other People, and Attempted Murder.
