Prosecution Set to Present Rebuttal Witnesses Next Week as Court Moves Toward Closing Arguments in High-Profile Sexual Assault Case
By:Willie N. Tokpah
Monrovia-The trial of Peter Bon Jallah, alleged rape defendant, at Criminal Court “E” at the Temple of Justice in Monrovia is approaching a decisive stage, with the defense having rested its case and the court expected to hear prosecution rebuttal witnesses next week before closing arguments and a possible verdict on Thursday, October 22.
The case, being heard by Judge Wesseh Alphonsus Wesseh Sr. without a jury, is expected to conclude, if the remaining proceedings proceed according to the current schedule.
Following the defense’s presentation of eight witnesses, including Jallah himself, the court convened for the appearance of representatives from three institutions subpoenaed by the defense.
These institutions include, Orange GSM, the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection, and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, JFK.
The defense sought the institutions’ participation in connection with documents relevant to issues raised during the proceedings.
Their appearance forms part of the final evidentiary steps before the case moves into its rebuttal and closing-argument phases.
The court is scheduled to resume on Monday, October 19, and Tuesday, October 20, when the prosecution is expected to present rebuttal witnesses in response to evidence introduced by the defense.
Sources familiar with the trial indicate that the prosecution could call as many as eight rebuttal witnesses, although the final number will depend on how the proceedings unfold.
If the prosecution completes its rebuttal evidence within the anticipated period, the parties are expected to present their closing arguments on Thursday, October 22.
Judge Wesseh Aphansus Wesseh could then deliver a verdict the same day, determining whether Jallah is guilty or not guilty of the charges against him.
The projected timeline, however, remains dependent on the completion of the outstanding proceedings and the court’s directions.
A Trial Marked by Contested Testimony and Forensic Evidence
Jallah’s trial has drawn attention because of the seriousness of the allegations, the testimony of the 16-year-old alleged victim, and the competing arguments over forensic evidence, medical findings and the circumstances surrounding the alleged incidents.
The defendant is facing allegations involving rape, gang rape or statutory rape, and kidnapping in connection with the case. He has pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations.
During the prosecution’s presentation, the alleged victim testified about alleged sexual encounters involving Jallah between November 2025 and January 2026.
The prosecution also presented police investigators, medical personnel and forensic evidence in an effort to establish its case.
The prosecution’s witnesses included Rwandan forensic examiner Pascal Bavugirije, whose testimony concerning DNA analysis became one of the central evidentiary issues in the trial.
Bavugirije testified that DNA profiles recovered from clothing submitted for examination were consistent with a match to Jallah’s profile.
His testimony also addressed the limitations of the forensic findings, including the fact that DNA evidence alone cannot establish when or how a sexual act occurred or independently determine whether force, consent, penetration or criminal intent was involved.
The handling of the samples also became a point of dispute, with questions raised about collection, packaging, transportation and the chain of custody.
Those issues featured in the defense’s challenge to the prosecution’s forensic evidence.
Defense Challenges Prosecution’s Account
Throughout the trial, Jallah and his lawyers have disputed the prosecution’s account and questioned whether the evidence presented established his criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jallah denied the alleged encounters and challenged aspects of the alleged victim’s account, including the circumstances surrounding the reported incidents.
He also raised an alibi involving the Du-Port Road and Mikey Gray areas.
The defense questioned the significance of the medical evidence, arguing that the findings presented should not automatically be treated as proof that the alleged crimes occurred as described.
Jallah also disputed the circumstances under which biological samples were collected, alleging that the police planted saliva DNA evidence.
That allegation remains a defense claim and has not been established as a finding of the court.
Questions concerning mobile-phone records were another feature of the defense case.
Defendant Jallah had sought records covering January 1 to 3 and the Christmas period, arguing that the information could help address disputed issues about his movements and the allegations against him.
The defense’s presentation of eight witnesses, including Jallah, marked the conclusion of its main evidentiary case, although the scheduled appearance of institutional representatives and the prosecution’s anticipated rebuttal evidence remain important steps before the matter can be submitted for a final decision.
Judge Previously Rejected Acquittal Motion
The approaching conclusion follows an earlier critical ruling by Judge Wesseh, who on September 30, rejected a defense motion seeking Jallah’s acquittal after the prosecution had presented 12 witnesses.
At the time, the court determined that the prosecution’s evidence was not “wholly insufficient” to warrant allowing the case to proceed.
That ruling required Jallah to present his defense but did not constitute a determination of guilt.
The defense had challenged several aspects of the prosecution’s case, including the identification of the alleged crime scene, the interpretation of medical findings and the reliability and handling of the DNA evidence.
The rejection of the acquittal motion allowed the trial to proceed into the defense phase, culminating in Jallah’s testimony and the presentation of additional defense witnesses.
With the defense now having rested, the prosecution will have an opportunity to respond to relevant defense evidence through rebuttal witnesses before both sides make their final submissions.
October 22, A Potential Turning Point
The next two scheduled court days could prove decisive in determining whether the case reaches closing arguments and a verdict within the anticipated timeframe.
The prosecution is expected to use Monday, October 19, and Tuesday, October 20, to present rebuttal witnesses.
If the proceedings are completed as planned, the lawyers will argue their respective cases on Thursday, October 22, after which the judge could make a decision.
Unlike a jury trial, the final determination in this case rests with the presiding judge, who must assess the evidence admitted during the proceedings and apply the relevant law to determine whether the prosecution has proved the charges.
For the prosecution, the remaining task is to respond to the defense’s challenges and establish that the evidence satisfies the applicable criminal standard of proof.
For the defense, the closing arguments will provide an opportunity to consolidate its challenges to the credibility of the testimony, the interpretation of the forensic and medical evidence, and the prosecution’s overall case.
Until the judge delivers a verdict, Jallah remained entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the allegations against him remain allegations to be determined through the judicial process.
The scheduled conclusion on October 22 would bring the trial to a major turning point in a case that has tested the court’s consideration of witness testimony, forensic evidence and competing accounts of the alleged events.