Testimony from former Defense Minister Daniel Ziankahn and state witness Prince Charles Johnson on Wednesday exposed material inconsistencies with the Government’s indictment of former Finance Minister Samuel Tweah J and others, undercutting central elements of the prosecution’s case and bolstering the defense’s procedural-defense strategy.
Called by the prosecution, Ziankahn told the court he had no knowledge of any formal “admission” of the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA) into the National Joint Security architecture. His answer directly challenges the prosecution’s contention that the FIA became part of Joint Security only after a 2023 letter from National Security Advisor Jefferson Kanmoh — a claim that prosecutors have used to frame their timeline and legal theory.
Security law experts testifying informally to reporters say the National Security Act of 2011 and the FIA’s enabling statute to make no provision for a post hoc “admission” process. The agencies are integrated by statute. It turned out however, that the Kanmoh letter at issue assigned a communications code “800” to the FIA, not institutional membership — a distinction Ziankahn’s testimony put squarely before the jury.
Prince C. Johnson’s testimony produced arguably the trial’s most damaging contradiction to the indictment. Under questioning, Johnson, now National Security Agency Director asserted that when the Minister of Justice is absent, the Minister of Defense — not the Acting Minister of Justice — chairs the National Joint Security. That account conflicts with repeated indictment language identifying Nyanti Tuan as the Acting Chairman of Joint Security and undermines a prosecution narrative that relied on Tuan’s alleged actions in that role.
Johnson also described the National Security Advisor as “swearing in” entities to Joint Security. Legal analysts and practitioners told Oracle News Daily that such ceremonial language conflates confidentiality oaths with statutory membership, and that institutional inclusion in Joint Security is a matter of law, not a swearing-in ritual — a legal distinction prosecutor had not clearly addressed in opening materials, the analysts said.
Inside legal circles, concern is growing that the Government’s case hinges more on administrative procedure than on demonstrable criminal conduct.
A government attorney, speaking on condition of anonymity, conceded that the prosecution’s presentation has emphasized procedural irregularities. “Absent evidence of criminal intent or wrongdoing, procedural issues alone may not sustain a conviction,” the lawyer said.
The defense’s courtroom tactics reinforced perceptions of prosecutorial weakness. Defense counsel declined to cross-examine Ziankahn and limited their questioning of Johnson to brief confirmation — a move widely read as confidence that the prosecution’s own witnesses were validating aspects of the defense theory.
