A confrontation at the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Taskforce (AREPT) headquarters has sparked tensions in the ongoing Saudi rice trial. Defense lawyer Gbawou Kowou alleged that witnesses who testified for the defense were summoned to AREPT and pressured. Kowou claimed that his witnesses were being held inside the facility and demanded access. The incident has raised concerns about potential witness tampering and its impact on the trial.
According to Kowou, the witnesses who testified before Criminal Court “C” were members of the Group of 77 and the community of persons living with disabilities. They allegedly told him that they were threatened or pressured to report to the AREPT office in Paynesville after appearing in court. Kowou confronted AREPT officials, who later allowed him into the compound. He was subsequently taken to a police station following the confrontation.
AREPT has denied the allegations, stating that the individuals at the center of the controversy were not invited for questioning. The agency claimed that its lawyers immediately asked them to leave after discovering that they had recently testified as defense witnesses. AREPT Public Relations Officer Joseph F. Daniels said the controversy arose after a potential witness who had previously provided a statement during the agency’s investigation was asked to appear at AREPT with other individuals familiar with the Saudi rice matter.
The dispute unfolded as AREPT prosecutors prepare to present rebuttal witnesses in the high-profile Saudi rice case involving 13 former government officials. The defendants face corruption-related charges stemming from the handling and distribution of Saudi-donated rice during the transition to the Boakai administration. The trial has attracted public and political attention, with defense lawyers repeatedly challenging aspects of the prosecution’s case.
Video footage from the scene showed a heated exchange between Kowou, AREPT employees, and other individuals gathered outside the facility. Kowou refused to stop filming, insisting that the world should know about the alleged criminal act. Officers of the Liberia National Police arrived at the scene, and Kowou repeated his allegations to them. The livestream ended as Kowou indicated that he would accompany the police inside the compound.
AREPT rejects the allegation that its lawyers attempted to influence or intimidate the witnesses. The agency stated that the two witnesses were not invited, were not interviewed, and did not provide any additional statements. AREPT suggested that if defense counsel has evidence of witness tampering or intimidation, it should be presented to the court.
The controversy places the conduct of both the prosecution and defense under renewed scrutiny. The central question for the defense is whether witnesses who have already testified were subsequently approached in a manner that could influence their testimony. For AREPT, the agency maintains that no such engagement occurred and that its lawyers acted to remove the two former defense witnesses from the premises once their status became known.
Key points
- Defense lawyer Gbawou Kowou accuses AREPT of witness tampering in the Saudi rice trial.
- AREPT denies wrongdoing and claims the incident was a misunderstanding.
- The controversy raises concerns about the integrity of the trial and the conduct of both the prosecution and defense.
