By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia- Criminal Court ‘A” resident Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie today, Tuesday, December 2,2025 ruled to remove a juror who lied under oath not knowing any of the Capitol Building Arson defendants as a member of the CDC and coordinator of District #13 of said party.
The Judge’s ruling followed a Bill of Information filed by government lawyer that the removed juror was a chairlady of the CDC and her presence on the panel jury has a negative implication on the jury.
Giving that she is an Influential, prosecution claimed that the trial will not be impartial.
In responding to the Prosecution Bill of Information, one of defense lawyers Cllr. Jonathan Massaquoi said, removing the juror from her post will be violating her constitutional right.
e claimed that the purpose for which prosecution continues to file these motions is to delay the trial but moreover, they want the jurors be disbanded.
The defense maintained that, the prosecution Bill of Information/ motion is a violation of the Liberian Constitution of 1986 in that no one especially Liberian citizen should be deprived of providing services to this country because they are member of a political party.
Cllr. Massaquoi arguing added that, the Bill of Information filed by prosecution seems to be the government vs the opposition CDC which is political instead of legal.
Defense lawyer said, the law provides for a peremptory challenge to refuse a juror and since they did not do that it is not moot for them to do. According to the defense lawyer, the photo of the juror attached on the Bill of Information is not scientific virtual proof.
Following the argument pro and con, Judge Willie asked the juror whether she was member of the opposition CDC? The juror #J-309550 answered in the affirmative and even stated that she’s the coordinator for CDC in District #13.
Judge Willie said, to determine the matter, the following questions would settle the dust.
- Whether or not, the prosecution, defense or any side is barred from challenging the honesty of a juror at this point where the juror has been screened, empaneled, sworn and the indictment read to them?
- Whether or not, the challenge as being insinuated by the prosecution violates the Constitutional Right of juror J30-9550?
- Whether the last ruling concerning J30-9819
in which this court denied prosecution application to reject that juror from the panel is similar and identical to this challenge for which it should serve as precedent?
In answering the first question, Judge Willie stated that relating to the first issue, the law provides that a challenge to a juror can be done at any time during selection of juror even after the juror has been sworn in but not after evidence has been produced or presented.
In his ruling, Judge Willie also indicated that reading of the indictment to the jury or the defendants is not the production of evidence. He said, reading of an indictment is an accusation that is read to the defendant to ascertain their plea and also read to the trial jury informing them that an individual/s or group of people have been charged with a crime and witnesses appear before the grand jury and probable cause was found and there is a need to proceed with trial.
Judge Willie in his ruling said, an indictment is not evidence because it does not prove the guilty of the defendant/s . He summarized the answer to the question he asked whether or not the prosecution has legal right to challenge a juror when the panel has been full, sworn and reading of the indictment is done. He answered yes, not only the prosecution but also the defendants. Therefore, reading of the indictment has evidence been produced, he said No.
The second question whether the challenge of the prosecution is a constitutional violation of J30-9550. In answering, Judge Willie narrated that in the application of the Bill of information/ motion, as filed by the prosecution, it specifically states that the challenge is not based on J30-9550 affiliation with the defendants but it is based on her lying under oath that she does not know any of the defendants based on her position to the CDC. In order to ascertain the fact to enable he Judge Willie to make an informed decision, he asked J30-9550 and J30-9550 told court that indeed she is a member of the CDC and not only that, she is a coordinator of the CDC.
The court added challenges are based on facts that when a juror is selected and it is believed that the said juror will not be impartial and for juror who will decide this matter based on facts to be a coordinator of the CDC, the court said. She has propensity to be bias and therefore, the challenge as submitted to the court and as stated says, that the possibility exist, which she could have stated during the vetting to explain exactly who is based on the fact her position.
The last issue, is whether or not the last ruling that he made wherein he denied the prosecution to take one of the jurors J30-9819 from the panel whether it applies to this application? The answer is No Judge said.
He further during his earlier ruling in which he objected and denied the application of the prosecution and the photos filed was just a photo of small head and the person who was in controversy was asked by this court and she stated that photo does not belong to her and moreover, it is possible that during the campaign rally because the prosecution said, she was one of the campaigners for Rep. Abu B. Kamara and even for that photo to be hers, many people can go for rally and that photo was never testified to by any one.
According to Criminal Court A judge, if the assumption that she is a member of the CDC, the court the court said no because there are so many people who are members of CDC or any other political parties and not have interacted with Rep. Abu B. Kamara.
Judge Willie said, he ruled the way he ruled is that J30-9550 is a member of the CDC but she holds an influential position which according to prosecution will make her to know the defendants.
“In the mind of this court, she will be pruned to be bias and therefore, the court said, as a result of that, J30-9550 is hereby ordered ejected from the panel jury and the remaining one will be called for in the similar manner and form as was previously done.
Meanwhile, defense excepted to the judge’s ruling and promised to take advantage of the statute controlling.
The defense in their exception said, no other juror should be selected but rather one of the alternate jurors can replace the removed one.