Request To Televise Capitol Arson Trial Denied

Criminal Court ‘A’ Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie, has denied a defense motion seeking to televise proceedings in the ongoing Capitol Building Arson Trial.

Judge Willie described the request as a “violation of existing court rules, and an attempt to bring the court to public disrepute.”

Judge Willie’s Ruling,

In his ruling, Judge Willie acknowledged that all cases inherently serve the public interest, but rejected the notion that public interest justifies media access in the way the defense proposed.

“Public interest refers to the welfare of society,” the judge said, noting: “But there is no one case that is more ‘public’ than another.”

The rules must apply to all, equally and without exception.”

Willie cited Rule 11, which strictly forbids live broadcasts and recording in all Liberian courtrooms, and said that allowing such a request would degrade courtroom decorum and mislead the public.

Quoting directly from the rule, he stated: “Proceedings in court shall be conducted with certain dignity and perfect decorum. The taking of photographs and recording of live broadcasts are calculated to allow lawyers to grandstand, detract from witnesses giving testimony, degrade the court, and create misconception, this shall not be permitted.”

He further stressed that any request to change this rule must be formally submitted to the Bar Association or the Supreme Court Rules Committee, not raised in open court. “The defense request is not only impermissible under the current rules, it is contemptuous and denied,” Judge Willie said.

The request, made by Counselor Arthur Johnson, came amid growing public scrutiny, and intense national interest in the case, which involves the prosecution of several individuals accused of orchestrating the mysterious fire that gutted a wing of the historic Capitol Building in December last year.

Cllr. Johnson argued that the public nature of the case, as well as country’s commitments to freedom of information, justified live media coverage of the trial.

He cited the Freedom of Information Act, the Table Mountain Declaration, and historical precedence in election-related cases where the Supreme Court allowed public broadcasts of proceedings.

“This is a new era,” Johnson told the court, adding: “We cannot continue to rely on outdated rules that block public access.

This trial concerns the very heart of our democracy, and the public has a right to know everything in real time.”

He also referenced the “Degree Petition Case,” which sought to determine the constitutionality of certain lawmakers, including J. Fonati Koffa, noting that public interest warrants public access.

Prosecution Pushes Back

But the prosecution led by Counselor Richard Scott, strongly opposed the motion, calling it “a deliberate attempt to undermine court rules and delay proceedings.”

Scott argued that the current rules were not outdated as claimed, clarifying that they were revised in 1999 under Justice Wilkins Wright, not from the 1960s as the defense claimed.

“The defense is engaging in grandstanding and misinformation,” Scott told the court.

“The law is clear: Rule 11 prohibits any recording or broadcast of live court proceedings.”

He accused the defense of trying to sway public opinions outside the courtroom, which, he said, was a violation of the sub judice principle, and even urged the court to fine the defense team for taking the case “to the press rather than the court.”

Scott further argued that if the defense wishes to challenge the rules, they should do so via a formal petition to the Supreme Court or Legislature, not through motions in ongoing criminal proceedings.

Yesterday’s ruling is expected to fuel criticism from civil society, press freedom advocates, and opposition figures who have already accused the state of using the judiciary as a tool for political control.

Meanwhile, sources closed to the defense team say they are weighing a constitutional petition to the Supreme Court to challenge the media blackout and seek broader access for the public.