The Criminal Court “A” has disbanded the entire jury panel in the on-going Capitol Building arson case, following a formal request from state prosecutors who raised concerns about the neutrality and integrity of the empaneled jurors.
Presiding Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie granted the motion during open court on Friday, January 2, 2026 ordering the immediate removal of the jurors and the launch of a fresh jury selection process. The court’s decision comes just days after earlier warnings about possible bias and external interference involving members of the panel.
It can be recalled that the prosecution, in their motion filed on Monday, December 29, 2025, applied for the dissolution of the current jury on ground that it has observed with utter dismay and consternation that the current venire of trial/petit jury has proven to be incompetent in rendering unbiased, independent and impartial verdicts in the Capitol Building arson trial.
They further submitted and contended that on Monday, December 22, 2025, 36th day of jury sitting, during the time and period of the jury’s questioning, it was overtly observed that the behavior of a good number of the fourteen trial jurors exhibited behavior and acts pointing to the fact that they lack the resolve and ability to exercise independent judgment.
“During the same time aforementioned, the jurors, during the period of their questioning of the prosecution’s first witness, in person of Chief Superintendent Rafael A. Wilson of the Liberia National Police, could be clearly seen exchanging questions and having consultation with each other before asking questions. Those exchanges bring into serious question whether or not the current venire of petit/trial jurors are capable of rendering an independent and impartial verdict, consistent with law and the weight of the evidence to be produced during the pendency of this very important trial,” the state lawyers argued.
The state quoted Section 19 of the Jury Procedures Manual of the Judicial Branch, which provides, “Sequestration is the isolation of a jury to avoid accidental or deliberate tainting. Although sequestration is rare, publicity surrounding a trial and interested parties may interfere with juror objectivity; a judge may order that a jury be sequestered in order to prevent others from tampering with members of the jury through undue persuasion, threats, or bribes.”
According to prosecution’s motion, while the latter reasoning is true and legal, it becomes much more dangerous for an undiluted and transparent trial, where the jurors, by reason of their lack of determination to make an independent judgment, is glaring.
Furthermore, prosecution contended staunchly and sternly that as if the previous conduct of some of the trial jurors was not sufficient to render their service in these proceedings as worthless and prejudicial to prosecution’s case, jury man J30-9863, on Monday, December 22, 2025, same being the 36th Jury Sitting, requested in his question to prosecution’s first witness to have the November 10, 2024 audio/Video recording replayed showing the desecration of the Joint Chambers of the National Legislature to which the witness had earlier testified.
Prosecution further mentioned in its motion that in responding to the witness’s answer, jury member J30-9863 concluded and formed an opinion by saying the individual in the video shown is a Chinese man and not Etheridge.
In response to the prosecution motion, defense lawyers said jurors are permitted to ask questions for clarification, and such participation demonstrates attentiveness rather than impropriety.
They further described the prosecution’s allegations as “false, misleading, and unsupported by evidence,” arguing that dissatisfaction with juror questions does not meet the legal requirement for the extraordinary remedy of disbanding a jury.
The defense further characterized the motion as an unwarranted attack on the integrity of the jury panel and, indirectly, on the authority of the court that empaneled and instructed the jurors. They emphasized that there is no evidence any juror was influenced, intimidated, or interfered with during the trial.
Addressing the specific juror referenced by the prosecution, the defense argued that the questions raised were neither illegal nor prejudicial and fell squarely within the juror’s duty to assess the evidence and seek clarity in the pursuit of justice.
The defense also warned that the prosecution’s attempt to politicize juror inquiry is unprecedented and contrary to the principles of a fair trial, cautioning that such actions could undermine public confidence in the judicial process.
However, in his verdict, Judge Willie stated, “A fair trial cannot proceed under conditions where juror impartiality is in doubt. This court is committed to ensuring justice is served transparently.”
The arson case stems from the 2023 fire that engulfed a portion of the Capitol Building, leading to significant damage and raising fears of politically motivated sabotage. Several individuals have been indicted and are facing charges of arson, criminal mischief, and conspiracy.
With the disbandment of the jury, the trial has been temporarily halted. The court is expected to begin the vetting of new jurors in the coming days—a move aimed at restoring confidence in the trial process.
Both prosecution and defense teams have expressed readiness to proceed once a new jury is seated.
The disbandment means the trial—which had just entered the early stages of witness presentation—will now be temporarily suspended as the court begins a fresh jury vetting and selection process.
The case relates to the mysterious fire that broke out in 2023 at the Capitol Building, which damaged key legislative chambers and sparked widespread concern over political sabotage and security failures. Several individuals are facing charges, including arson, criminal conspiracy, and destruction of public property.
The delay caused by the jury reset is expected to add further tension to the high-stakes case, which has drawn nationwide interest due to its links to political unrest and allegations of state involvement.
Court officials say a new jury is expected to be empaneled in the coming days, and proceedings will resume immediately after. The defense has not opposed the court’s ruling but has called for transparency and fairness.
Meanwhile, defense lawyers have taken an appeal to the Supreme Court of Liberia while at the same time calling on the lower court to grant the imprisoned defendants bill to have them released.
