Former Finance Minister Samuel D. Twea h challenged the prosecution’s US$6.2 million economic‑sabotage case during direct examination, arguing that the state has not produced evidence sufficient to meet the legal threshold for conviction.
The prosecution alleges that Twea and four former officials illegally transferred L$1.055 billion and US$500,000 through the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA) for personal use. In his testimony, Twea characterised the case as “assertions rather than evidence,” pointing to what he described as gaps in the evidentiary chain.
According to Twea, the state has failed to demonstrate three essential elements: (1) authorisation from the National Security Council for the transfers, (2) any personal benefit received by the defendants, and (3) communications indicating a conspiracy to divert the funds. He asked the court where records of new houses, luxury cars, expensive purchases or unexplained bank deposits were, noting that prosecutors in similar cases often rely on sudden asset accumulation as circumstantial proof of illicit enrichment. “If we truly ‘converted’ public money for ourselves, there should be a paper trail or visible lifestyle change,” he said.
Twea also disputed the money‑laundering charge. Citing the French term blanchiment d’argent, he argued that laundering requires “dirty” money—proceeds of an underlying crime that are then concealed to appear legitimate. He maintained that funds held in a government account are public monies, not proceeds of crime, and that moving them between government accounts does not satisfy the classic laundering stages of placement, layering and integration. “This may be an administrative or misappropriation issue, but calling it money laundering stretches the definition beyond recognition,” he asserted.
The former minister further attacked the prosecution’s reliance on a July 2023 letter from Jefferson Karmoh, which the state presented as evidence that the FIA was not properly part of the National Joint Security (NJS) operations. Twea questioned the adequacy of a single third‑party statement in lieu of documentary proof such as bank records, transfer authorisations or signed directives. Legal observers noted that the defence’s strategy seeks to create reasonable doubt by highlighting the absence of corroborating documents and by reframing the case as an administrative dispute rather than a criminal conspiracy.
Lawyers familiar with the trial said the defence is attempting to separate the alleged “improper transfer” from the more serious charge of economic sabotage. By emphasizing the lack of evidence of personal enrichment and challenging the legal basis of the laundering allegation, the prosecution faces the task of linking the transfers to a criminal intent that meets the statutory requirements.
The trial remains ongoing, with further testimony expected in the coming weeks.
