MONROVIA, Liberia — A Liberian court will deliver its verdict Friday in the closely watched trial of Peter Bon Jallah, a former aide to the head of the country’s National Security Agency (NSA), who is accused of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old boy.
By Victoria G. Wesseh
Judge Wesseh Alphonsus Wesseh Sr. of Criminal Court “E” reserved judgment after hearing closing arguments on Thursday, October 22. Criminal Court “E” is Liberia’s specialized court for sexual offences, sitting at the Temple of Justice, the seat of the judiciary in Monrovia. The judge said he would rule at 11 a.m. on Friday, October 23.
Prosecutors urged the court to convict. The defense argued that the state had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, centering its challenge on the medical and forensic evidence.
The Charges
Jallah, 63, was arrested on January 7, 2026, and charged by police with gang rape, statutory rape and kidnapping. He has pleaded not guilty.
He served as a special assistant to NSA Director Maj. Gen. Prince C. Johnson. The agency suspended him pending the outcome of the case. His link to the leadership of one of Liberia’s main security institutions has made the trial a test, in the eyes of many observers, of whether the justice system can hold well-connected defendants to account.
Prosecutors allege the boy was abused on multiple occasions between November 29 and December 24, 2025, at Jallah’s home in Monrovia’s Sinkor district. According to the prosecution, the boy did small household tasks there in exchange for money. Investigators further allege that on January 1, 2026, Jallah lured the boy away by offering to buy him football boots, then held him at a building on Camp Johnson Road until January 3. Prosecutors say the boy was assaulted there by Jallah and two unidentified men.
Jallah has denied all allegations. He told investigators that the boy had never entered his compound and that he had no contact with him.
Evidence at Trial
The boy testified in August, telling the court he was assaulted three times between late November and New Year’s Day. The court admitted his police statement into evidence over defense objection.
The prosecution also relied on DNA analysis carried out abroad. In September, Pascal Bavugirije of the Rwanda Forensic Institute testified that DNA profiles recovered from four exhibits matched Jallah’s reference sample. He cautioned, however, that the finding could not show when, how or under what circumstances the DNA got there. Tissue and toilet paper collected from the scene produced a mixed DNA profile from unknown persons that matched neither Jallah nor the boy.
Investigators have also said cellphone analysis placed Jallah near one of the alleged scenes. The defense called eight witnesses, including Jallah himself, before resting its case.
Closing Arguments
Prosecutor Calvin H. Momolu asked the court to convict. He pointed to medical findings that documented bruising, swelling and abrasions on the boy, and argued that the evidence should be weighed as a whole.
Defense lawyer G. Wiefueh Alfred Sayeh countered that the police investigation was inconclusive and that the state had misread the medical and forensic findings. He cited a report from the John F. Kennedy Medical Center, Liberia’s main public referral hospital, dated March 4, 2026, which reportedly found no visible signs of anal trauma. He also cited the Rwandan forensic testimony. He argued that the evidence did not establish penetration, an essential element of the rape charges.
The two sides differ sharply over what the medical evidence shows. Under international medical guidance, an absence of visible injury does not by itself rule out sexual abuse. Equally, physical injuries alone do not establish who caused them.
Verdict Friday
In its formal order, the court said that, having heard arguments, it had reserved its verdict of guilty or not guilty until Friday. Counsel for both sides, the defendant and the Bureau of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which holds pre-trial detainees, were present.
Jallah remains presumed innocent unless the court finds the prosecution has proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt