By Lincoln Peters
Criminal Court “A” witnessed another scene of a heated legal confrontation on Thursday, December 18, 2025, in the ongoing Capital building arson trial, as both defense and prosecution turned the Court into a Hollywood-style courtroom.
By Lincoln G. Peters
The case involves former Speaker Cllr. Jonathan Fonati Koffa, several colleagues, and additional defendants accused of conspiring, among other things, to set fire to the Capitol Building.
During a rigorous cross-examination of the prosecution’s primary witness, defense lead counsel Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson leveled serious accusations against the Liberia National Police (LNP).
Cllr. Johnson claimed that the LNP deployed over fourteen pickup trucks filled with armed officers to the residence of defendant Thomas Etheridge, where officers allegedly forced Etheridge to hold a bottle of Clorox.
The defense further asserted that on January 13, 2025, LNP Inspector General Gregory O.W. Coleman and a prosecution witness transported Etheridge to the National Security Agency, where officers again attempted to force him to hold the Clorox bottle.
The defense further argued the alleged use of Etheridge’s cellphone, purportedly in police custody since December 18, 2024, to attempt a call to former Speaker Koffa, with the intent of stating, “Chief, I received the money.”
Prosecutors objected to these lines of questioning, and the court, presided over by Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie, sustained the objections, instructing the witness not to respond.
A central issue in the trial revolves around the authenticity and interpretation of an audio recording.
Prosecutors argue that the recording captures the defendants referring to a “Plan B,” interpreted as a plot to burn the Capitol Building after other attempts failed.
The defense disputes this, insisting the recording does not explicitly mention arson and that references to “parking chairs” concern seating arrangements and previous renovation work, not criminal activity.
Cllr. Johnson pointed out that discussions about renovations occurred before October 2024 and criticized the prosecution for failing to provide official records linking the defendants to the alleged arson plot.
The defense argued that the trial was mischaracterizing routine legislative or renovation activities as evidence of a conspiracy to disrupt legislative proceedings.
The defense’s most serious challenge concerns the authenticity of the audio evidence itself. They alleged that the recording was generated or manipulated using artificial intelligence, suggesting that investigators fabricated evidence to implicate the defendants.
Defense lawyers supported this claim with testimony about how easily such audio can be created with widely available technology.
The defense requested that only qualified voice experts be permitted to testify on the authenticity of the recording, warning the court about the dangers posed by AI-generated voice impersonation and other digital manipulations.
Meanwhile, tensions flared during cross-examination when defense counsel probed whether the LNP had created and packaged the audio recordings.
Prosecutors objected, calling the question argumentative and opinion-based, and argued that it violated constitutional rights and the witness’s protection against self-incrimination.
Judge Willie sustained the objection.
Prosecutors firmly denied any fabrication, maintaining that the audio recordings were genuine and accurately captured a criminal conspiracy among the defendants.
As the trial continues, a crucial determination awaits regarding the admissibility and credibility of the challenged audio recordings. The court’s decision on this matter is expected to be pivotal in the outcome of this high-profile case. -Edited by Othello B. Garblah.
