Monrovia- Defence attorneys representing former Home Speaker Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa and 4 different lawmakers have known as on the Monrovia Metropolis Court docket to dismiss all prices in opposition to their shoppers, arguing that prosecutors have didn’t current any bodily or direct proof linking them to the December 2024 “arson assault” on the Capitol Constructing.
By Willie N. Tokpah
Throughout a preliminary listening to held on the Monrovia Metropolis Court docket on Tuesday, June 10, defence attorneys asserted that the state’s case is constructed on assumptions and oblique associations reasonably than substantive proof.
The listening to, which seeks to find out whether or not the accused needs to be formally indicted, comes within the wake of a high-profile political controversy that rocked the nationwide legislature late final 12 months.
State prosecutors have claimed that Koffa and the others conspired within the assault primarily based on recorded conversations and Koffa’s alleged reference to among the preliminary suspects as “his boy.”
Nonetheless, the defence group objected, emphasising that such statements don’t represent a authorized foundation for felony legal responsibility.
“There isn’t any proof, no video, no eyewitness, that locations our shoppers on the scene of the crime or proves they deliberate or supported this felony act,” one of many defence attorneys argued.
“The state is making an attempt to stretch phrases and private associations into felony conduct, which the regulation doesn’t allow.”
Former Speaker Koffa, together with Representatives Dixon Seboe, Abu Kamara, Prescilla Cooper, and Jacob Debee II, had been charged with a number of felonies together with Arson, Prison Mischief, Prison Facilitation, Reckless Endangerment, Tried Homicide, and Prison Conspiracy.
These prices stem from a hearth that broken the Capitol throughout a tense standoff over legislative management.
All, besides Consultant Cooper, who opted to waive her proper to a preliminary listening to, had been formally arraigned and briefly detained earlier than being launched on bail on Monday, June 9.
Regardless of the gravity of the accusations, the defence maintains that the fees are politically motivated and legally inadequate.
“It is a trial by implication, not proof,” the attorneys continued.
“And in a courtroom of regulation, suspicion will not be an alternative choice to proof.”
Authorized analysts observing the case have famous the unusually speedy tempo of proceedings and raised questions concerning the lack of forensic or testimonial proof from the prosecution.
If the courtroom finds advantage within the defence’s argument, the case may very well be dismissed earlier than ever reaching trial.
The preliminary investigation continues, with the courtroom anticipated to rule quickly on whether or not the matter will proceed to indictment.
Because the authorized battle unfolds, the accused lawmakers have denied any involvement within the incident, pledging to clear their names and proceed serving their constituencies.
