Monrovia, Liberia – The high-profile national security spending trial took a dramatic turn on Monday, April 27, 2026, when jurors asked former Minister of Finance and Development Planning Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. a series of pointed questions that directly addressed the prosecution’s accusations of abuse of authority, irregular financial transfers, and the legitimacy of emergency spending during his tenure.
The prosecution rested following Tweah’s cross-examination following weeks of testimony, but the focus soon turned to the jurors, whose questions revealed serious doubts about the former Finance Minister’s rationale for important choices. When the jurors started questioning Tweah over his Terms of Reference under the Public Financial Management (PFM) Law, their line of inquiry gained importance. In response, he said that it was his legal responsibility to make sure that all public funds were handled appropriately and to enforce compliance on companies that paid taxes to the government.
The former minister emphasized that the law put him immediately under the President of Liberia and that he was also answerable to the Legislature, which approves the country’s budget, when asked to whom he reported. The conversation brought to light one of the trial’s main themes: the extent of the Minister of Finance’s discretion when operating under presidential authority. Jurors then asked whether Tweah had ever been summoned in relation to the LACC inquiry.
He maintained that he hadn’t, claiming that he was abroad and didn’t find out about the invitations via email until after he was charged. During the COVID-19 epidemic, jurors re-examined the government’s contentious funding transfer to the World Food Programme (WFP). Tweah justified the choice by characterizing the public health problem as a national emergency requiring immediate action. Although he admitted to circumventing standard procurement processes, he said that in times of emergency, government action is driven by lawful agreement rather than competitive bidding, especially when multinational partners agree on the implementing organization.
Jurors questioned Tweah on his previous claim that national security funds were occasionally distributed through the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL) in another crucial exchange. Tweah said that the CBL was not a part of the National Joint Security (NJS) but that the bank often uncashed checks for security organisations. The evidence of CBL cashier Theo Larmie, who said he had never handled NJS funds, also presented a challenge to him. Larmie operated on a need-to-know basis, Tweah said, pointing out that financial procedures have been in place “for more than 20 years” and that national security operations are classified.
The 2023 Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA) emergency funds that resulted in a contentious transfer was further questioned by the jury. Tweah made it clear that the National Security Council (NSC) made the request by oral consensus; the previous Defence Minister, who is currently a prosecution witness, also confirmed this process. He argued that since the financial trail is created through allocations, approvals, and audit procedures rather of the method of request, written requests are not required for accountability.
Who has the authority to declare a national emergency was the subject of another round of juror enquiries. Tweah reaffirmed that the President may proclaim both public and private emergencies, initiating classified national security spending procedures, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief and NSC Chair. Tweah’s earlier claims that the prosecution’s case was based on conjecture and hasty decisions were then squarely disputed by the jurors.
In light of the sensitive nature of national security transactions, he defended the claim and accused investigators of improperly tracing the payments. Tweah reiterated that his transfers were lawful, pointing to a triangle of authority that included the NSC’s approval, the National Budget’s approval, and the PFM Law, which he claimed gave him the capacity to act quickly in an emergency.
The National Elections Commission (NEC) funds was also examined by the jurors, and Tweah acknowledged going above the authorized budget. He contended that the Minister may surpass spending caps in times of emergency under Section 26 of the PFM Law, so long as the overruns are disclosed in the year-end financial statement. In response to the question of whether legislative approval was necessary for the extra spending, he said that since the Legislature itself granted that authority through the act, the law requires reporting rather than endorsement.
After Tweah’s cross-examination, the prosecution rested, and the case now moves into a critical phase. The main fault lines were revealed by the jury’s pointed questions: Was the Minister’s power used appropriately? Were national security protocols adhered to legally? Does avoiding procurement make sense in an emergency? Did investigators overlook the regulations governing classified spending?
The weight of the jurors’ questions might influence the course of a trial that has captivated the country and raised serious concerns about financial responsibility, national security secrecy, and presidential authority in Liberia’s government system as the defence gets ready for its next move.
