The prosecution in the high-profile Capitol Building arson case, involving defendants such as former Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, Representatives Abu Kamara, Thomas Etheridge, and Jerry Pokah (alias Tyrese), is facing intense criticism following revelations of a late discovery filing.
During Thursday’s proceedings at Criminal Court “A,” it emerged that the State submitted critical discovery materials, including witness lists, evidentiary records, and expert analyses, just days before the trial’s scheduled start, well beyond the legal deadline.
This delay has sparked concerns about due process and the fairness of the trial. The case, centered on an alleged arson incident in central Monrovia that caused extensive property damage and posed threats to public safety, has gripped national attention.
The defendants face serious charges, including arson, criminal conspiracy, attempted murder, and reckless endangerment.
The prosecution’s failure to provide timely discovery has drawn sharp objections from defense attorneys, who labeled the move “procedurally abusive” and a violation of their clients’ constitutional rights to prepare an adequate defense.
According to court records, the prosecution delivered the discovery materials, critical for the defense to build their case, as late as 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 27, 2025. Legal provisions mandate that such materials be disclosed well in advance to allow sufficient preparation time.
Defense counsel argued that the late submission severely hampers their ability to analyze evidence and file pre-trial motions, such as a potential change of venue, which could be critical to ensuring an impartial trial. County Attorney Scott defended the prosecution’s actions, asserting that the late delivery does not justify a continuance.
“Receiving discovery at 7 p.m. yesterday is not grounds to delay, as the defendants have multiple opportunities to introduce evidence,” Scott stated.
He further argued that motions like a change of venue do not hinge on the timing of discovery. However, the defense countered that timely access to evidence is essential for informed legal strategies and ensuring a fair trial. Presiding Judge Willie weighed in, emphasizing the importance of discovery in upholding due process.
“The purpose of discovery is to provide sufficient time for the adverse party to respond to filed documents,” he stated. Judge Willie noted that the defense raised valid concerns about needing adequate time to review the materials to determine whether pre-trial motions, such as a change of venue, were necessary.
He ruled that the prosecution’s submission on Wednesday night was insufficient, as it fell short of the required five-day advance notice. In light of these developments, Judge Willie deferred the trial proceedings to Tuesday, September 2, 2025, granting the defense additional time to review the late-submitted evidence.
This decision underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring a fair trial, despite the prosecution’s procedural misstep. The controversy has intensified public and legal scrutiny of the case, with observers questioning whether the prosecution’s actions reflect systemic issues or an attempt to disadvantage the defense.
The high-profile nature of the defendants and the severity of the charges amplify the stakes, making transparency and adherence to legal standards critical. As the trial approaches, all eyes remain on Criminal Court “A” to see how this procedural dispute will impact the broader case.
