Liberia: State Accused of Withholding International Fire Expert Report in Capitol Arson Trial - FrontPageAfrica

Monrovia — Fresh controversy has erupted in the ongoing Capitol Building arson trial following allegations that the Government of Liberia deliberately withheld an international fire investigation report believed to contain findings favorable to the defense.

The allegation surfaced during proceedings on Tuesday, December 16, when defense lawyers disclosed that an expert report prepared by a Minnesota-based international fire investigation team was never turned over by the prosecution during discovery. According to the defense, the prosecution has repeatedly objected to any reference to the report in open court, effectively keeping it outside the evidentiary record.

Legal analysts warn that the suppression of potentially exculpatory evidence—if proven—would constitute a serious violation of due process and fair trial guarantees under both Liberian law and international legal standards.

The development has revived public memories of the 2022 United States sanctions imposed on a former Liberian Solicitor General, which were based in part on allegations of withholding exculpatory evidence in criminal prosecutions.

Defense lawyers argue that the alleged exclusion of the international expert report raises profound questions about prosecutorial transparency and ethics in a case of major national importance. The court has not yet ruled on whether the report will be admitted into evidence.

What’s in the Report?

The report, authored by three internationally experienced fire experts invited by the Liberian government to investigate the Capitol Building fire, was submitted to Police Inspector General Gregory Coleman in March 2025.

The three-member team—Fire Chief (Ret.) Jerry Streich, Fire Chief (Ret.) Ken Prillaman, and Fire Chief (Ret.) Mark Lynde—arrived in Monrovia on February 28, 2025, after repeated efforts by Liberian authorities to secure assistance from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) proved unsuccessful.

While acknowledging the challenging conditions faced by local responders, the experts sharply criticized the Liberia National Fire Service (LNFS) report, describing it as incomplete, inaccurate, and inconsistent with modern fire science.

According to excerpts cited by the defense, the report found that the LNFS investigation lacked basic details on firefighting operations, investigative actions, and responding personnel, and that several conclusions were unsupported by forensic evidence.

“As the country’s fire agency, we would have expected the LNFS report to be the most comprehensive relative to a fire of this size. Unfortunately, this is not the case,” the report states.

It further notes that the LNFS report “contains no specifics regarding responding personnel, nor any description of specific actions conducted on the fire scene,” and includes “misstatements, inaccuracies, and conclusions unsupported by best-practice investigative tactics or modern fire science.”

The revelations have intensified scrutiny of the prosecution’s handling of forensic and expert materials as the trial proceeds.

Wilson Under Fire Over Investigation Credibility

Meanwhile, the Chief Investigator of the Liberia National Police (LNP) Crime Services Department, Assistant Commissioner of Police Rafael Wilson, remained on the witness stand Tuesday under intense cross-examination.

Defense counsel pressed Wilson on the credibility of the fire investigation and related audio evidence. When asked to identify the international fire expert who reportedly assisted the LNFS during the investigation, Wilson told the court he could not recall the expert’s name—an answer that appeared to surprise both the defense and the court.

When defense lawyers attempted to question Wilson about the expert’s findings, the prosecution objected, arguing that Wilson was not qualified to testify on expert conclusions and that the state intended to call the expert as a witness. Criminal Court “A” Judge Roosevelt Willie sustained the objection.

Tensions escalated when the prosecution requested that the court bar all references to the international expert report. Defense lawyers countered that the report exposes fundamental flaws in the LNFS investigation.

Defense counsel Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson cited the report as concluding that the LNFS lacked the training, experience, and equipment necessary to properly collect, preserve, and store fire scene evidence. The report also faulted the Liberia National Police for inadequate documentation of investigative actions and personnel involvement.

The prosecution dismissed the defense’s approach as introducing “strange practices” into the trial—a claim the defense rejected, arguing that cross-examination exists precisely to expose weaknesses in the state’s case.

Disputed Audio Evidence

Attention later shifted to an audio recording allegedly linked to defendant Dixon Seboe. Defense lawyers questioned Wilson on whether he could conclusively identify the voice on the recording as Seboe’s.

Wilson conceded that he is not a voice expert and acknowledged that the recording does not clearly identify the speaker as Dixon Seboe, noting that the individual refers to himself only as “Seboe.”

He testified that the National Security Agency (NSA) provided technical assistance in analyzing the audio and that investigators concluded it implicated Seboe. However, under further questioning, Wilson admitted there was no formal voice analysis report and that no qualified voice expert had yet testified.

“You told this court you are not a voice expert,” defense counsel argued. “How then did you determine it was Dixon’s voice?”

Wilson responded that a voice expert would be produced to testify and explain the findings.

Statement and Denial

The defense also questioned Wilson about his interrogation of Seboe. Wilson confirmed that Seboe denied any involvement in the Capitol fire, stating that he learned of the incident only after waking up and later went to the Capitol Building after other government officials had already arrived.

Wilson acknowledged that no force was used to obtain Seboe’s statement and that his investigative report accurately reflected Seboe’s denial.

As the trial continues, the court faces mounting challenges to the credibility of the fire investigation, the handling of expert evidence, and the reliability of audio material relied upon by the prosecution—developments that could prove pivotal in the outcome of this high-profile case.