Judge Roosevelt Willie of Criminal Court 'C' is facing what some would consider his greatest and most crucial professional decision as he prepares to make a determination regarding the subject matter jurisdiction of the over US$500,000 corruption case involving former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah and others.
The defendants, who were members of the National Security Council (NSC) guided by the National Security Council Reform and Intelligence Act of 2011, face the question of disclosing sensitive national security information in the legal proceedings. Judge Willie’s ruling will determine the court’s handling of this complex issue.
The National Security Reform Law prohibits disclosure of any information that comes to them by virtue of being “members of the National Security Council,” one of the key arguments the defense motion to dismiss the indictment raised that Judge Willie would have to decide.
During proceedings on Wednesday, February 26, Judge Willie heard arguments on the merit and demerit of whether it was necessary to compel members of the NSC to disclose sensitive information of funding allocated to the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA) for national security operations.
Immediately afterwards, Willie reserved his ruling for tomorrow, Friday, February 28.
The government sought Willie's decision to have members of the NSC, to include former Finance Minister Samuel Tweah, Cllr. Nyanti Tuan, former Acting Minister of Justice and Jefferson Karmoh, former National Security Advisor to President Weah, to publicly release the national security information. Others include Stanley S. Ford, former Director General, and D. Moses P. Cooper, former Financial Intelligence Comptroller of the FIA.
But, during yesterday's proceedings, one of the defense lawyers, Cllr. Wilfred Sayeh argued that not only members of the National security council are prohibited from revealing information at the pain of jail, but that they would like to clear their names and reputation by revealing sensitive national security information. He added that they are prohibited by law from doing so.
Cllr. Sayeh"s argument was backed by the proceedings.
The prosecution raised the contention that the defendants do not have to testify in the court for national security reasons. Rather, they would still be able to prove them guilty without their testimony.
