MONROVIA — Liberia’s top judge has declared that the country’s trial jury system has been so badly compromised that it may no longer be worth keeping. That position has set the Judiciary against the legal profession and a sitting senator, and has raised the question of what protects a verdict once the jury is gone.
By Gerald C. Koinyeneh
Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay Sr. made the call on Monday at the opening of the Supreme Court’s October Term. He told the courtroom that jury manipulation was eroding the administration of justice in both civil and criminal matters. “A corrupt jury is worse than no jury at all,” he said.
Within hours, the proposal had drawn a response from the Liberia National Bar Association (LNBA), a challenge from Senator Darius Dillon, and warnings from lawyers who say the plan would trade one weakness for another.
The Chief Justice’s Evidence
Gbeisay did not present the call as theory. He pointed to reported cases of jury tampering in Nimba, Grand Gedeh, Bomi and Margibi counties, involving charges ranging from rape to drug trafficking. He also referred to suspected interference in proceedings at Criminal Court “C” in Monrovia.
The earliest example dates to 2022 in the Eighth Judicial Circuit in Nimba County. The Chief Justice alleged that a deputy marshal assigned to the circuit had been used as a conduit to compromise a jury.
In Republic of Liberia v. David Nagbe, a rape trial in Grand Gedeh County during the May Term of 2025, tampering was reportedly identified four days after an acquittal. In Republic of Liberia v. George Bongar, another rape case, this time in Bomi County during the May Term of 2026, alleged tampering surfaced 19 days after an acquittal.
In Margibi County, he cited the drug case Republic of Liberia v. Quita Dolo et al., in which interference was reportedly suspected while proceedings were still pending.
He also discussed a US$100,000 drug-related case before Criminal Court “C” and a separate matter in which allegations of jury tampering and misconduct emerged seven days after an acquittal. According to the address, Judge Ousman F. Fieka investigated the latter and established gross jury tampering.
The Chief Justice also noted that jurors are members of the public, not Judiciary employees, but that their conduct nonetheless reflects on the courts.
The Bar Says Fix It First
The LNBA responded the same day. Its President, Cllr. Juah Lawson, condemned jury tampering and said anyone who corrupts a juror, attempts to, or serves as an intermediary strike at the integrity of the justice system. “Such conduct must have consequences,” he said.
The Bar stopped short of backing abolition. Lawson accepted the Chief Justice’s invitation for the Legislature, the International Bar, the Law Reform Commission and other stakeholders to examine the proposal and pursue constitutional reform, but drew a line around what that acceptance means. “The LNBA accepts the invitation to participate in this intervention,” he said. “However, our participation should not be understood as an endorsement of abolition.”
Lawson said trial by jury holds an important place in Liberia’s constitutional framework and argued for diagnosis before surgery. “Before we contemplate abandoning the institution itself, we should carefully examine why there is failure in particular instances and whether those failures may be corrected,” he said.
The Association listed areas it wants examined first:
– how jurors are selected and vetted;
– jurors’ security and sequestration;
– their compensation and conditions of service;
– access to jurors and their intermediaries;
– the protection of juror information;
– the role of court personnel; and
– the investigation and prosecution of those behind tampering.
“Liberia must have this conversation,” Lawson said, “but it must be a conversation grounded in evidence, constitutional fidelity and broad stakeholder consultation.”
Analysts who spoke to FrontPage Africa said the response shows the legal profession is willing to consider structural change but wants proof that stronger safeguards and enforcement cannot solve the problem.
Senator Dillon: A Referendum, not a Bill
Senator Dillon took the sharpest position. In a Facebook statement, he rejected the proposal and argued that trial by jury is a constitutionally protected right that cannot be removed through ordinary legislation. Citing Article 20(a) of the 1986 Constitution, he said abolition would require a national referendum.
He also argued that the reported cases point to weak enforcement, not a flawed institution. “We cannot simply seek to undo laws because of our failure to summon the courage to implement and enforce the laws,” Dillon wrote.
His reading of the amendment process is a statement of his own legal position, and the correct procedure would ultimately have to be settled by authoritative legal interpretation. But the constitutional text gives his argument weight. Article 20(a) guarantees due process and a fair hearing, while Article 21(h) provides for the right to a speedy, public and impartial trial by jury of the vicinity in the criminal cases it covers. Any move to abolish or substantially alter that right would call for close analysis of the applicable amendment procedures.
Who Watches the Judge?
The sharpest objection to the proposal is not about juries at all. It concerns what replaces them. A lawyer who spoke to FrontPage Africa on condition of anonymity, citing fear of retribution, strongly opposed abolition. The lawyer argued that handing greater decision-making power to judges, without addressing alleged corruption on the bench, could damage public confidence further.
The lawyer alleged that some judicial officers accept bribes to influence judgments, and that some legal practitioners will not take a case unless clients provide money meant to influence jurors. These claims are serious and have not been independently established. But they point to a possible chain of corruption in which several actors exploit the same weak points.
Critics say this is the accountability gap in the Chief Justice’s plan. Removing jurors eliminates one point of manipulation, but it does not eliminate bribery or intimidation. Someone determined to obtain an unlawful outcome could simply redirect the pressure. Instead of approaching several jurors, that person could focus on the single officer deciding the case.
That does not mean judges are generally corrupt, and nothing in the debate establishes that they are. It means that concentrating a verdict in one set of hands raises the stakes on every safeguard around those hands.
Legal systems worldwide operate judge-only trials fairly, but those systems typically rest on independent courts, transparent processes and credible discipline of misconduct. Liberia’s critics ask whether those foundations are in place. If jurors can be bought, they say, the country must also be able to say what happens when a judge is accused of being bought.
Allegations Are Not Findings
Observers also say the details of the cited cases matter. An allegation raised after an acquittal is not proof that a verdict was improperly obtained, and misconduct in one trial does not necessarily mean the whole system cannot function fairly.
What the public still lacks, they say, is a clear account of which allegations were formally investigated, what evidence was found, whether anyone was charged or disciplined, and whether those findings held up in court. Only Judge Fieka’s inquiry was described in the address as having established tampering.
That information would help separate substantiated corruption from suspicion. It would also show whether the failure lay in the jury system or in the enforcement that should have protected it. Without it, critics say, citizens are being asked to give up a constitutional safeguard before getting a full explanation of why existing laws failed.
Enforcement and Its Gaps
Many of those opposing abolition return to the same point: the law already requires protection of jury proceedings. When a juror is bribed, a court official facilitates tampering or a lawyer tries to influence a verdict, the response should be investigation and prosecution where evidence supports charges, along with professional discipline where it applies.
A credible deterrent depends on misconduct being detected, fairly investigated and punished. When it goes unpunished, scrapping the institution can look like a faster fix than confronting the people responsible. But critics argue that redesigning an institution cannot substitute for enforcement.
The same standard, they say, must apply to judges and lawyers. Allegations should be examined through independent and credible procedures consistent with due process. Judicial officers should not be presumed guilty because rumors circulate, but the authority of the bench should not shield anyone from legitimate scrutiny either.
The Judiciary’s credibility, they add, depends not only on the judgments it delivers but on how it responds when its own processes are questioned.
Questions Any Reform Must Answer
If Liberia moves toward a judge-only model, the questions critics want answered are concrete:
– How are complaints of judicial misconduct investigated, and by whom?
– What disciplinary tools exist, and how transparent are their outcomes?
– Are court proceedings documented well enough to permit meaningful scrutiny?
– What protection exists for those who report corruption inside the legal profession?
These questions, they say, go to the legitimacy of whichever system the country chooses.
Neither model is inherently better. Professional judges may be better placed to explain the legal reasoning behind a verdict, while citizen participation can guard against concentrated state power. The question, observers say, is which arrangement can protect constitutional rights and deliver impartial justice under Liberia’s actual institutional conditions.
The Chief Justice’s invitation to the Legislature, the Bar and the Law Reform Commission offers a chance to move beyond competing declarations. Those following the debate say a credible review should:
– examine the cases cited in the address and establish the status of each investigation and prosecution;
– determine how the alleged interference occurred and whether existing laws were enforced;
– assess the vulnerability of judges and court officials to improper influence, and the effectiveness of discipline;
– consider remedies such as stronger juror screening and protection, tighter security around deliberations, stricter controls on contact with jurors, better reporting channels and more effective bribery investigations; and
– weigh every proposal against constitutional requirements, defendants’ and victims’ rights, the need for timely trials and the courts’ practical capacity.
If a judge-only system is ultimately considered, they say, its backers must explain how judicial independence would be protected, how allegations against judges would be investigated, and how pending and future cases would be handled under the constitutional process required for change.
A reform of this size, they argue, should not be driven by frustration with a series of troubling cases. It should rest on evidence of which arrangements are failing, why, and how the alternative would fix them.
The Question That Remains
No one in the debate disputes that jury tampering, if proven, is a grave offense. A verdict obtained through bribery or intimidation harms defendants, victims and public trust in the rule of law.
But the Chief Justice’s critics maintain that removing juries would not resolve the underlying problem. If the jury system is compromised, they say, it must be repaired. If judges face allegations, those must be investigated fairly and independently. If lawyers are implicated, professional accountability must follow where the evidence supports it.
“No institution should be beyond scrutiny,” as critics put it, and no constitutional right should be set aside without a legally sound and publicly examined justification.
For now, the proposal has opened a debate that reaches well beyond courtroom procedure. Remove the jury, critics say, and the judge becomes even more central to the verdict. Until Liberia can say who holds the judge accountable, the question of whether the country is confronting corruption or only moving the power to decide justice from one place to another will stay unanswered.