“We Cannot Fully Rely A Medical Report”–Judge Willie Denied Defense Motion, As Defense Lawyers Threaten To File Writ Of Centuriori To Supreme Court
PHOTO: Some of the arso
By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia- Several suspects in the December 2024 Capitol Building have retracted the claims they made that they were subjected to torture and sodomy during their interrogation by state security forces, Criminal Court “A” Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie said on Wednesday, September 24, 2025 when he denied defense lawyers’ motion to suppress evidence.
COURT’S RULING:
In a ruling, Judge Willie in the motion to suppress evidence filed by defense lawyers, Judge Willie said that the court cannot rely on the medical reports from the AMI Expeditionary Healthcare to make authoritative decisions.
According to the Criminal Court “A” Judge, from the content of the covering letter as just read, it is difficult to make an informed and authoritative decision based on the report because of two (2) major reasons.
Firstly, Judge Willie said the revocation or voluntary retraction by the Defendants of the claim of sodomization during their medical examination, when all of them stated that they were never sexually abused in their genital and anal and therefore, no medical examination should be done to these parts of their body.
The Court said, what this presupposes is that, although, they told the Court the evidence should be suppressed because, they were sodomized, this information is imaginary as insinuated by them during their medical examination and therefore, it would be unnecessary to conduct any examination relating to sodomization.
Secondly, the admission of the Physician in his report, when he acknowledged that the medical examination encountered certain “limitations and constraints”, which he mentioned as: (i) the passage of time between the alleged incidents and the examinations, which may have obscured or altered physical findings.
(ii) Patient revocations of consent for specific examinations (notably genital and anal assessments) and (iii) the inherent limitations of available diagnostic modalities within our present setting. He then concludes that despite these constraints, he endeavored to provide a thorough, impartial and professionally grounded account of the clinical evidence before him.
”We hasten to note that Dr. Philip Zochonis Ireland provided photographic account of some of the Defendants having scar wounds and some illnesses on their body but further stated that, even though the Defendants overall assessment was consistent with the allegation, however, these findings could also be caused by other conditions other than torture. So, in addition to his admission that his findings were hampered by the passage of time between the alleged incidents and the examination, which may have obscured or altered physical findings, and also the inherent limitations of available diagnostic modalities within our present setting, also contribute to the fact that the report has some constraints,” Judge Willie stated.
He said, Notwithstanding these challenges and constraints, we note with great admiration and gratitude to Dr. Philip Zochonis Ireland whom in spite of these limitations and challenges faced, he endeavored and provided a professionally grounded account of what was placed before him.
In his September 24,2025 ruling, Judge Willie stated that While we cannot definitely state that the account was conclusive to enable us make the informed decision necessary to suppress the evidence, we do recognize and appreciate the effort made by the AMI Expeditionary Healthcare through Dr. Philip Zochonis Ireland. However, we cannot fully rely on the information to suppress the evidence.
Another question we need to answer concerning the issue of sodomization and torture for which the Defendants through their Legal Counsel are praying for this Court to suppress the evidence is, whether or not the Defendants were represented by legal counsel during the interview/investigation process! Under the organic law of Liberia, that is, the 1986 Constitution, Article 21(c) provides that, “Every person suspected or accused of committing a crime shall immediately upon arrest be informed in detail of the charges, of the right to remain silent and of the fact that any statement made could be used against him in a court of law.
Such a person shall be entitled to counsel at every stage of the investigation and shall have the right to be interrogated except in the presence of counsel. Any admission or other statements made by the accused in the absence of such counsel shall be deemed inadmissible as evidence in a court of law.
“The main purpose for this provision of the Constitution is for the legal counsel representing the Defendants to advise them and protect their legal interest and where there is a semblance that their rights is being violated, that legal counsel must there and then raise the issue and stop or terminate the interview by whosoever or whatsoever security agency conducting that interview, and this is why the legal representation must begin from the arrest up to and including the finalization of the case even if it means to go to the Supreme Court of Liberia.
In the record before us, Judge Willie added that, it is shown that upon the arrest of the Defendants, their basic fundamental rights to include, their right to remain silence until and unless in the presence of their legal counsel and as well as the right to privilege against self-incrimination were explained to them. The record also shows that the Defendants were represented by their legal counsels, namely: Cllr. Jonathan T. Massaquoi, Atty. Martin J. S. Corlon and Atty. Ekwe Bernard, who were present when the Defendants were being interviewed to gather the evidence as herein presented, and there was no issue of sodomization and torture raised so that they the Counsels would put stop to the interview by informing their clients not to say anything as their rights were being violated.
“So, while it is true that the photographic report of Dr. Philip Zochonis Ireland showed some scar wounds on some of the Defendants, there is no linkage that the evidence obtained were as a result of torture, because at every stage of the gathering of the evidence, the Defendants were represented by their Legal Counsels. Moreover, during the application of the Defendants to Suppress Evidence, their main contention was that they were sodomized and tortured during the gathering of the evidence by State’s Security and, it is predicated upon these two (2) concerns that the Court ordered the AMI Expeditionary Healthcare to conduct a medical examination and subsequently report to the Court for determination of the Motion”
Narrating further, Judge Willie stated, Notwithstanding the two (2) issues raised by the Defendants that they were sodomized and tortured, the individual and collective report of the Defendants received from Dr. Philip Zochonis Ireland states that, when the medical examination was being done, all of the Defendants denied any form of sexual assault or sodomy and therefore revoked or retracted consent, for which no medical examination was performed on them concerning their genital and anal parts of the body.
He lamented that, Subsequently thereto, the Defendants had not proven that the evidence gathered from them were obtained by means of sodomization and torture, since under our law, as contained in the case opined by the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia: Shaheen v Occidentale, 13 LLR, page 278, syllabi 4 and 5, respectively, state that, 4: “An answer which both denies and avoids is dismissable for inconsistence”, and 5: “Where an answer both denies and avoids, the defendant will be ruled to a general denial of the allegations contained in the complaint”.
Accordingly, based on the Medical Report, the facts and the law cited herein, it is the honest view of this Court that the evidence should be passed unto the Trial Jurors, who are the trial of facts and clothed with the legal authority to determine the genuineness of the allegations as made by the Defendants.
Notwithstanding this view, it is also the frank assessment of this Court based on Article 10(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which says that, “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person”. Thus, the State is under obligation to ensure that these rights of the Defendants as stated hereinabove are respected at all time.
WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court says based on the issues as raised by the Defendants, the resistance thereto by the Prosecution, the laws cited herein and the arguments put forth by the Parties, the Motion to Suppress the Evidence is hereby denied and this case is ordered proceeded forthwith. The full trial in these proceedings is hereby assigned for Friday, September 26, 2025, at 10:00am prompt. All Parties being present, today’s minutes serve as Notice of Assignment.
The Court having listened to the application, resistance and the arguments hereto, says that there are five (5) questions that must be answered to resolve the issue at bar. They are:
- Whether or not the National Security Agency (NSA) has the legal authority to collaborate with the Liberia National Police for Investigation, such as the crimes as stated?
According to the Defense Counsel, the Act establishing the National Security Agency (NSA) does not ascribed unto it the authority to investigate criminal matter, such as those as herein stated: arson, criminal mischief, criminal conspiracy, criminal solicitation, criminal attempt to commit murder, illegal possession of fire arm, recklessly endangering the life of another, release or distribution of force. Its authority is only limited to espionage and other clandestine operations, and can only report to the President of the Republic of Liberia, and therefore, the investigation carried out by it along with the Liberia National Police should be suppressed.
In answering the question, the Court says the act establishing the National Security Reform and Intelligence Act of 2011, Section 2 (b) states that “this Act shall apply to all statutory law enforcement agencies: the Liberia National Police including the National Police Training Academy; the Bureau of Corrections and Rehabilitation; the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization; the Drug Enforcement Agency; the Bureau of Customs and Excise; the National Fire Services; the Motor Vehicle Bureau; the National Security Agency and the Special Security Services (now replaced with the Executive Protection Service in this Act)…”. In other words, various security agencies can collaborate in the collection of information for criminal cases that has to do with national security and public safety.
As in this case, the collection of the information that was requested through the Ministry of Justice, that is, the Liberia National Police was done with the authorization of the Monrovia City Magisterial Court through a Writ of Search and Seizure Warrant that was issued on December 18, 2024.
The Criminal Court A judge revealed that, When the Writ of Search and Seizure Warrant was issued and granted by the Monrovia City Magisterial Court, the telephones of seventy-two (72) persons were seized by the Liberia National Police and since the police did not have the sophistication to examine these cell phones, it requested the collaboration of the National Security Agency (NSA), since these crimes are bordered on National Security and Public Safety.
- Whether or not the LPRC has the authority to determine the type of petroleum product contained in a clora bottle, as in this case?
Before answering this question, we wish to herein quote verbatim the Memorandum that came from Mr. Jango T. Sirleaf, Acting Assistant Laborating Manager to Yeakeh Sayequee, Operations Manager, Titled: Quality of Product, dated: January 2, 2025, it states that, “On January 2, 2025, the Petroleum Testing Laboratory of the Liberia Petroleum Refining Company (LPRC) was asked to analyze a flammable substance in a clora bottle from Mr. Vallay Sirleaf, Chief of Forensic Investigation, LNP. The sample in the bottle was less than five milliliters (5ml). Based on the sample quantity (5ml), detailed analytical analyses could not be conducted as per ASTM methods of testing petroleum products. Hence physical examinations were done. See below our findings:
- The flammable substance has a marketable gasoline odor
- The flammable substance contains suspended water.
Based on our findings above, the flammable substance found in the clora bottle is a mixture of gasoline and water.”
So, does the inquiry of the Defense Counsel as it relates to the Memorandum of the LPRC regarding the clora bottle failed to establish the purpose for which the Liberia National Police requested for collaboration and who conducted the physical examination?
Our answer is no because, from the entire Memorandum, it states that the individual, Mr. Jango T. Sirleaf, whose title is Acting Assistant Laboratory Manager and one can also observed from the second paragraph of the Memorandum that due to the less quantity, that is, five milliliters of the quantity found in the clora bottle, a detailed analysis could not be conducted; meaning, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International) method for testing petroleum product and therefore according to the Memorandum, A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION WAS DONE and according to the result, it said a flammable substance that has a marketable gasoline odor, the flammable substance contained suspended water and therefore, the Memorandum concluded that the flammable substance found in the clora bottle is a mixture of gasoline and water.
”We must state herein that the LPRC did not conduct a forensic examination as per the ASTM International Method of testing petroleum products but rather a physical examination of the substance provided and the LPRC has the authority to so do as per this mandate. Notwithstanding the physical observation as reported herein by Mr. Jango T. Sirleaf, Acting Assistant Laboratory Manager, this Court thinks the Motion to Suppress the findings is premature because, the Defense can challenge the ‘Witness who identified the product in the clora bottle to speak about his academic credential during the trial.”
According to Judge Willie, while it is true that there is no public evidence that LPRC has statutory authority to conduct forensic testing or enforce laws regarding mislabeling or illegal storage, LPRC may assist law enforcement or regulatory bodies with technical expertise if requested and this is what was done as per their communication, they stated that they only conducted physical examination and not the ASTM International Method of testing as is normally done.
- Whether or not the Writ of Search and Seizure issued from the Monrovia City Magisterial Court comprise the legal elements as statutorily required?
According to the Defense argument, the evidence as presented by the Prosecution should be suppressed because the application for the Writ of search and seizure lacked the Affidavit, location, the name or names of persons to be searched, chain of custody and they did not provide copy of the inventory to those from whom the items were searched and seized.
To answer this question, we look at the communication of December 18, 2024 emanating from Hon. Simeon F. Frank, Deputy Inspector General, Crime Services Division, Liberia National Police, sent to Cllr. Richard Scott, Jr., County Attorney for Montserrado County, requesting authority through the Court to allow them analyze and collect any information that may have potentially contributed to the fire incident, which occurred at the Capitol Building, Seat of the National Legislature on the morning of December 18, 2024, and whether the fire incident was caused by an act of “criminal agency or electrical incident”. Attached to that letter were the names of seventy-two (72) persons of interest and their telephone numbers.
Upon receipt of the said letter and on the same date, that is, December 18, 2024, the County Attorney for Montserrado County, Cllr. Richard J. Scott, Jr. wrote to the Stipendiary Magistrate of the Monrovia City Magisterial Court, His Honor L. Ben Barco, requesting for the issuance for the Writ of Search and Seizure Warrant with an attached Affidavit for a Writ of Search and Seizure Warrant from Justice of the Peace Martha L. K. Sherman on the same date.
The said Writ was issued on the 18th of December, A.D. 2024 by the Monrovia City Magisterial Court and according to the Return signed by the Acting Sheriff, Captain Charles Bloyuefloh, it states that “On the 18th day of December A.D. 2024, the acting Sheriff of the Monrovia City Court proceeded at the Liberia National Police Headquarter, with a search and seizure warrant, authorizing the Liberia National Police to search in the seventy-two (72) Defendants phones”.
So as per the documents as herein attached and noticed by this Court, the persons for whom the search and seizure warrant was issued, names and their telephone numbers were attached to the search and seizure warrant requested by the Prosecution to the Monrovia City Magisterial Court. An affidavit from Justice of the Peace Martha L. K. Sherman was also attached and a return was made by Captain Charles Bloyuefloh, Acting Sheriff of the Monrovia City Magisterial Court.
Referenced to the law stated in Section 11.6 of the Criminal Procedure Law, titled Execution and Return of Warrant with Inventory, states that “…The Magistrate, Justice of the Peace, or Judicial Officer empowered to perform such function, to whom the return is made, shall upon request deliver a copy of the inventory to the person from whom or from whose premises the property is taken and to the applicant for the warrant”.
During arguments for the Motion to Suppress, the Prosecution stated that all of the phones were returned to the owners who requested for their phones, and only two (2) never requested because they were among those who escaped and were later arrested through joint collaboration with neighboring securities.
On the issue of the chain of custody, all documents to be used as evidence in this case were submitted to the Monrovia City Magisterial Court and subsequently submitted to this Court. So to say that the chain of custody was not adhere to, is again premature because no evidence has been brought to be testified to that is not part of the discovery.
- Whether or not the call log obtained by the Prosecution met the legal requirements as argued by the Defense?
To answer this question, we revert to the communications of December 18, 2024, to include the Police request to the County Attorney for authorization from the Court, the request for Writ of Search and Seizure by the County Attorney to the Monrovia City Court, the Affidavit for the issuance of the Writ of Search and Seizure Warrant signed by Justice of the Peace, Martha L. K. Sherman and the Writ of Search and Seizure that was subsequently issued by the Monrovia City Court to the Liberia National Police.
During arguments, the Defense Counsel stated that the Prosecution did not subpoena the GSM Companies for the examination of the Defendants’ phones and therefore this evidence should be suppressed. As we have earlier stated, the investigating team of the Liberia National Police (LNP) acted in consonance with Section 2 (b) of the National Security Reform and Intelligence Act of 2011, which calls for the collaboration of all law Enforcement Agencies for the purpose of National Security and Public Safety.
Accordingly, when they have gotten authorization from the Monrovia City Court to search the phones of persons of interest, they collaborated with the National Security Agency that has the sophistication to do so.
It is predicated on this, that the Ministry of Justice requested the National Security Agency (NSA) to aid in the investigation using their requisite sophistication in order to ensure that evidence are gathered and probable cause are established to prosecute those involved in the crimes as hereinabove stated.
So, for the Defense to argue that the call log of the Defendants were fraudulently obtained by the Prosecution to the extent that it was not stamped by the GSM Companies, is farfetched because, the investigation did not need to subpoena a GSM Company as they were already issued a Writ of Search and Seizure by the Monrovia City Court, which gave the investigation the authority to use their sophistication to obtain the various communications between the Defendants and not a subpoena to the GSM Companies to produce call log.
- Whether or not the Defendants were sodomized and tortured, for which the evidence should be suppressed?
The issue of sodomization and torture as claimed by the Defendants is one of the most contentious issues amongst the several issues raised by the Defendants because, it borders on both international and national concerns. It is against these backdrops that upon addressing the other issues that were purely based on law, the Court ordered a medical examination through a medical institution to determine the authenticity of the allegation.
We wish to herein mention that the first institution chosen by this Court was the John F. Kennedy Medical Center because, this medical institution is the regular institution through which all medical concerns raised by inmates both pretrial and convicted detainees at the Monrovia Central Prison are carried for treatment and/or examination and report therefrom enables the Court to make an informed decision.
We also wish to state that, the reason provided to us by the Government of Liberia through the Ministry of Justice via the Monrovia Central Prison is that, the John F. Kennedy Medical Center and the Redemption Hospital are Government Institutions that the Ministry of Justice has insurance coverage for inmates at the Monrovia Central Prison. So, when the issue of sodomization and torture were raised by the Defendants, the Court ordered a medical examination to be conducted through the John F. Kennedy Medical Center.
However, the Defendants through their legal Counsels refused to attend the John F. Kennedy Medical Center because, according to them, the John F. Kennedy Medical Center is a Government owned Institution and they fear that they will not be given a fair and transparent medical examination. They further exhibited this action by filing a Motion for an independent and/or private institution other than the John F. Kennedy Medical Center to conduct the medical examination on their clients.
Although, the Court granted this application but fined the lawyers US$100.00 (One Hundred United States Dollars) and US$50.00 (Fifty United States Dollars), respectively, for instructing their clients not to obey the order of the Court, which action is tantamount to Contempt of Court.
Thereafter, the Court selected and ordered the AMI Expeditionary Healthcare, located on 1 Street & Tubman Boulevard, Opposite the UN Building, to conduct the medical examinations of the Defendants based on their claims of sodomization and torture.
Therefore, on September 19, 2025, the AMI submitted the individual and collective Medical Examination Reports of the Defendants, to include: Stephen M. Broh, Jerry Pokah, Eric Susay, Kivi Bah Kaba, Thomas Etheridge, John Nyanti and Amos R. Kofa. As stated earlier, this issue of sodomization and torture of the Defendants as alleged by them while they were in detention has both international and national concerns and therefore, we herein reference some instruments that have direct relations with the claims as made.
For example, Article Seven (7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It further states that this right is absolute; meaning, there should be no justification or exception to be invoked even during public emergency.
While this Article does not prescribe any punishment for violators, the enforcement relies on State-level obligation and international oversight through the Human Right Committee of the United Nations that monitors States compliance with the ICCPR. We do note that Liberia has ratified and signed this instrument and is under obligation to protect same. Additionally, there is another International Instrument under the United Nations, subtitled: BAN ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT. These instruments CALL FOR INVESTIGATION, CONCLUSIVE AND DEFINITIVE INFORMATION before punishing violators. We also note that Liberia has ratified but has not signed the BAN ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT; meaning, Liberia recognizes all of these instruments. For these instruments to be enforced, there must be an investigation based on due process with a conclusive and definitive outcome.
Moreover, Article 21(e) of the 1986 Liberian Constitution states that, “No person charged, arrested, restricted, detained or otherwise held in confinement shall be subject to torture or inhumane treatment; nor shall any person except military personnel, be kept or confined in any military facility; nor shall any person be
seized and kept among convicted prisoners or treated as a convict, unless such person first shall have been convicted of a crime in a court of competent jurisdiction. The legislature shall make it a criminal offense and provide for appropriate penalties against any police or security officer, prosecutor, administrator or any other public official acting in contravention of this provision; and any person so damaged by the conduct of any such public official shall have a civil remedy therefore, exclusive of any criminal penalties imposed.
“What this Article 21(e) is saying is that, any person so damaged or injured by the conduct of any such public official shall have civil remedy therefor, exclusive of any criminal penalties imposed on such person who acted in contravention of this Constitutional Provision.
The question that might be answered is, when does a person so damaged or injured have a civil remedy! It is and only then when the claim of the person so injured or damaged has been investigated based on due process and a definitive and conclusive finding has identified the specific person or institution. The findings of the investigation must also state the time frame in which said damage or injury occurred.
Having cited these laws as stated above, which intent is to iterate the gravity of this claim because, it has the proclivity to deny the evidence, we now turn to the issue raised by the Defendants through their legal counsel that has to do with sodomization and torture, which this Court could not determine, since it is based on medical examination and facts. Accordingly, the Court mandated the AMI Expeditionary Healthcare to medically examine the said individuals who stated that the evidence obtained from them were as a result of them being sodomized and tortured by security officers while they were detained and being investigated.
Subsequently, the AMI Expeditionary Healthcare conducted the medical examination based on the claims of sodomization and torture, and submitted a report through Dr. Philip Zochonis Ireland, BSc, MD, MPH, MASt (Clinical Endocrinology), MACP, FWACP and FLCPS. We wish to read verbatim the covering letter written to this Court on September 18, 2025 and received September 19, 2025, along with its concluding message.
“Your Honor:
Transmission of Medical Reports Pursuant to Allegations of Torture With the highest respect, I have the honor to transmit herewith the medico-legal reports prepared in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol on the seven individuals who presented with allegations of torture.
As the Examining physician, I wish to respectfully convey that I have undertaken these examinations and investigations with the utmost diligence, objectively, and fidelity to international medico-legal standards. I have carefully documented the history, clinical findings, and psychological observations of each individual, and where possible, supported the reports with photographic evidence.
Nevertheless, I must also acknowledge that certain limitations and constraints were encountered during this exercise. These included: -The passage of time between the alleged incidents and the examinations, which may have obscured or altered physical findings.
-Patient revocations of consent for specific examinations (notably genital and anal assessments) in some cases.
-The inherent limitations of available diagnostic modalities within our present setting.
Despite these constraints, I have endeavored to provide a thorough, impartial, and professionally grounded account of the clinical evidence before me.
I respectfully submit these reports into the custody of the Honorable Court, with the earnest hope that they may assist Your Honor in the dispensation of justice. I am confident that under your wise leadership, guided by the rule of law, justice shall be rendered in a manner befitting both the dignity of the Court and the rights of the complainants.
I remain, Your Honor, with the highest esteem and professional regards.
Respectfully submitted”.
Meanwhile, defense lawyers have threatened to file a writ of Centuriori to the Supreme Court of Liberia and threatened that Judge Willie will not continue with the arson case.