The Monrovia City Court is poised to deliver its ruling on the arson case that has captivated public attention since the Capitol Building was set ablaze in December 2024. The defendants—former House Speaker Fonati Koffa and three other lawmakers—stand accused of masterminding the audacious attack.
However, the case against them is marred by significant legal implications stemming from the prosecution’s reliance on social media evidence and the failure to directly connect the defendants to the alleged crime.
During the final legal arguments Thursday, defense attorney Wilkins Wright, a former Associate Justice, presented a compelling challenge to the prosecution’s case, arguing that the evidence being used to implicate the lawmakers was not only irrelevant but inadmissible.
The crux of Wright’s argument centered on the nature of the evidence, which allegedly stemmed from WhatsApp messages and other digital communications taken from phones not owned by the defendants. This raises fundamental questions about the integrity of the evidence and its connection to the accused.
The defense contended that because the evidence was derived from sources not on trial—individuals who are completely unconnected to the defendants—the prosecution had effectively failed to establish a critical link necessary to advance their case.
According to Chapter 11.10 of the Criminal Procedure Law, evidence must have clear relevance to the defendants in order for it to be admissible. Thus, the defense urged the court to overturn the social media evidence and dismiss the charges against Koffa and his co-defendants.
In stark contrast, state prosecutor Cllr. Richard Scott fiercely opposed the defense’s motion, asserting that the challenge to the evidence was filed too late in the proceedings. He argued that once the evidence had passed the admissibility test and been entered into the court record, its relevance was no longer open for debate. Scott emphasized that the defendants should have contested the evidence much earlier in the trial if they believed it was obtained improperly.
Magistrate L. Ben Barco, who presides over the case, acknowledged the complexities at play. He remarked that the court had already determined the evidence to be admissible, citing a decision supported by previous rulings from the Supreme Court.
However, the defense’s assertions brought to light the potential pitfalls of relying on social media evidence, particularly when it originates from sources not directly connected to the accused.
The reliance on social media evidence raises troubling questions about privacy, the chain of custody, and the standards for admissibility in modern criminal proceedings. If the court rules in favor of the defense, it could potentially set a precedent that might significantly alter how digital evidence is utilized in future cases, particularly those involving highly public figures.
