As The Trial Continue Monday, Dec. 1

By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com

TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia- Two supporters of the ruling Congress of Democratic Change have been held in contempt of court for spreading fake information on their respective Facebook pages in the ongoing arson case at Criminal Court “A”.

The two are Benjamin Flomo Jr and Sattiah A. Sattiah.

According to the resident judge of Criminal Court “A” Roosevelt Z. Willie, the two supporters of the CDC are expected to appear in court this Friday November 28,2025 to cause why they should not be held in contempt.

Judge Willie said, failure on their part to appear in court on the date slated, a writ of arrest will be issued on them.

Judge Willie indicated that, throughout this process, there are some people who call themselves Bloggers but there are people who are in the interest of this court and we have done investigation and we know them. Also there is someone who wrote the Jury Manager, in person of Cllr. Andrew Nimely a particular information asking for some form of favor we are now going to order this clerk to issue writ of Contempt to these people who call themselves Bloggers to come to this court on Friday, November 28, 2025. We have attached the action of these bloggers.

The Judge named first person is one Mr. Satiah A. Satiah, we have a Writ of Contempt for him to come to this court on Friday, November 28, 2025, for asking the jury Management for favor and the other one is one Benjamin Flomo Jr. he has posted that the Supreme Court have selected so so Unity Partisans on the trial Jurors panel, they are hereby held in Contempt of Court to come on Friday, November 28, 2025, to answer why they should not be held in Contempt of Court.

Prior to this mandate above, Judge Willie denied prosecution bill of information in which the alleged that one of the jurors is a staunch notch supporter of Representative Abu B. Kamara.

The prosecution on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, upon the selection of the empaneled jurors for the trial of this case, the prosecution filed a Bill of Information to this court that it has in its possession photos of juror J30-9819, and that this photo that has several women in it believe to be CDCians were on a campaign program and that in that photo, is Juror J30-9819, and that campaign was being held in favor of Abu Kamara who is one of the Defendants in these proceedings.

The Prosecution further stated in their Bill of information, to keep said juror in the trial jury will be tantamount to keeping a jury in the impanel jury who is prone to conflict of interest and biases. To further substantiate it claims, the prosecution provided to this court two sheets containing several females that are allegedly part of the Abu Kamara campaign team and itis also alleged that Juror J30-9819 is present.

In resistance to that application, Defendants Legal Team told this Court that the sheets containing photos as presented is just flying sheets that could be dotted and this Court should have it thrown out of this Court.

Defense Counsel Team also stated that the sheets containing the photos were not testified to by any witness in order to authenticate that the photos as herein contained which is attributed to juror J30-9819 and they further stated that there is no source for which this Court should take the photos.

Thereafter, the Parties were ordered to argue their side of this Bill of Information. When Prosecution was asked about the source of these photos, Prosecution indicated that the photos were obtained from a social media post. Defense Counsel also argued that assuming that this photo is the photo of J30-9819, it is the constitutional right of the Juror to be a member of a political party, which rights cannot be taken away from her.

Immediately following the arguments of the Parties, this Court ruled that it will make a ruling on the Bill of Information today, Wednesday, November 26, 2025 at this time. In order for this Court to make an informed decision on this matter, it was just but prudent to inquire from the juror that is subject of this controversy to to the testify to this Court and tell this Court as to whether this is her photo and, if it is question posed by the Court stated that her photo is not on any of these sheets as presented by the Prosecution.

Looking at the nature of the situation, the court said, first thing is, these photos were presented to the matter based on the photos presented and based on the answer to the questions Court as is, there is no witness that testified to this photo. Secondly, the photos as presented did not or the person who presented it did not show any prove that these photos are the photos of the juror in question, and the matter is even worst that the juror in question has stated that she is not on this photo.

The court ruled on what could be the disadvantages of such photo as referred to an individual or what can we say about its authenticity. First of all, the photo as pointed to by the Prosecution with a pen does not reflect the photo that is on the jury management form. Secondly, this photo could be derived in such a manner and form because the world is now dominantly controlled by Al usage in the creation of social media content and as the caption of this photo reads, it says Women of Hope for CDC with two others and it has there “Paulita and Abu all the way.

Secondly, that the Court failed to acknowledge that while juror J30-9819 indicated that she is not on the photo, she claimed that her mother is on the photo. Prosecution excepts to Your Honor’s ruling on those two (2) grounds.

Judge Willie added that, the assumption there is that, the caption of this paper is possible that it can be done by an expert in graphic design. But let’s go to the other issue that has to do with as to whether or not the juror is a member of the Congress/Coalition for Democratic Change (CDC).

The Judge continued that, Under our organic law as stated in Article 11(b), I am quoting this and that is to say were this juror to be a member of the Congress/Coalition for Democratic Change (CDC), our Constitution provides that: “all persons, irrespective of ethnic background…”.

Judge Willie indicated that New Jury Law provides the requirements or elements for the disqualification from serving jury duty; several are indicated herein but one of the fundamental one herein is that, a juror must not prone to biasness  or conflict. As in this case, the Bill of Information as provided to this Court did not prove that this juror is prone to biasness or conflict of interest for disqualification because of a mere photo.

This Court has always stated that it will do everything possible that this trial is free and fair from all religious, political or whatever background other than the law.

Having stated that, the Bill of Information as hereby filed by the Prosecution to have the juror rejected from the panel is hereby denied and the juror will remain thereon for proper standing.

However, prosecution after the denial of their Bill of information, prosecution excepted to the ruling on the following grounds:
1. That the second issue raised by Your Honor concerning political lineage is not or was not an issue of the State since in fact and indeed the State acknowledges a person’s right to political affiliation to the extent that the coordinator of the district of a particular party was not objected to.

Meanwhile, the trial will continue on Monday, December 1, 2025, at 9:15am prompt.