Subject: Request for Assistance Regarding the Conviction of My Husband, Peter Bon Jallah III, Special Agent to the Director , Major Prince C Johnson III.
Dear Mr. Ambassador,
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the conviction of my husband, Peter Bon Jallah III, who serves as a Special Agent to the Director, Major Prince C Johnson III.
I respectfully wish to bring to your attention the circumstances surrounding his trial and conviction on charges of statutory rape and kidnapping in Liberia. I believe that the proceedings were unfair and that serious questions remain regarding the evidence presented during the trial.
In particular, I am concerned that the evidence presented by the prosecution may have been insufficient to establish my husband’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I also believe that the defense’s arguments and the evidence presented on my husband’s behalf were not given adequate consideration.
Furthermore, I am concerned about the circumstances surrounding the forensic testing and the handling of the evidence. In my view, these issues raise questions about the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings.
I respectfully request that your office consider my concerns and, within the limits of its authority, explore whether any appropriate assistance or guidance may be available. I understand that the United States Embassy cannot interfere in Liberia’s judicial process; however, I hope that my concerns regarding due process, the fairness of the trial, and the protection of fundamental human rights can receive appropriate attention.
My intention is not to undermine the justice system but to seek fairness, transparency, and a careful review of the circumstances surrounding my husband’s conviction.
I would be grateful for any guidance your office can provide regarding the appropriate channels through which these concerns may be formally raised.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and attention to this serious matter. I sincerely hope that this request will be received with compassion and that the relevant concerns will be given due consideration.
Respectfully yours,
Shirley Jallah
October 27, 2026
The Family of Peter Bon Jallah wants their voices and grievances to be known!
Headline: Beyond Resonable Doubt? Serious Questions Surround the Peter Bon Jallah “Verdict”
2nd letter
Subject: Formal Expression of Concern Regarding the Conviction of Former National Security Agency Director Peter Bon Jallah
Dear Ambassador and Representatives of the U.S. Department of State,
I am writing to express my serious concerns regarding the recent conviction of former National Security Agency Director Peter Bon Jallah on charges of statutory rape and kidnapping in Liberia. The proceedings before Criminal Court “E,” presided over by Judge Wesseh Alphonsus Wesseh Sr., have raised important questions about the consistency of the evidence, the treatment of the defense’s arguments, the application of evidentiary standards, and the appearance of judicial impartiality.
My purpose in writing is to call attention to concerns that, in my view, deserve careful and independent consideration. The fairness of criminal proceedings is essential to public confidence in the justice system, particularly in cases involving serious criminal allegations and individuals who have previously held positions of public responsibility.
1. Concerns Regarding Judicial Impartiality
Throughout the trial, there appeared to be inconsistencies and disputed issues that warranted careful scrutiny. However, I am concerned that the court’s handling of certain matters may not have adequately addressed the defense’s position.
A judge has an ethical and constitutional responsibility to remain impartial, evaluate the evidence objectively, and ensure that both the prosecution and the defense receive a fair opportunity to present their cases.
In this proceeding, questions have arisen about whether the defense’s arguments and challenges to the prosecution’s evidence received sufficient consideration. Reports and observations concerning the judge’s conduct during the proceedings have also raised concerns about whether the court maintained an appropriate balance between the parties.
I recognize that a judge may question witnesses and examine evidence in order to clarify disputed facts. Nevertheless, when judicial questioning or evidentiary rulings appear to favor one side, it can undermine public confidence in the neutrality of the proceedings. These concerns deserve examination based on the complete trial record.
2. Questions Concerning the Physical and Forensic Evidence
I am also concerned about the manner in which physical and forensic evidence was presented, challenged, and evaluated.
Reports from the proceedings indicated that DNA profiles recovered from several exhibits were consistent with Mr. Jallah’s DNA profile, meaning that he could not be excluded as a contributor to those samples. However, the significance of DNA evidence must be assessed in the context of all the circumstances, including the source of each exhibit, its handling and preservation, and the limitations of what the testing can establish.
A DNA match, by itself, does not necessarily establish when or how biological material was deposited. It is therefore important that the court carefully consider the relationship between forensic findings and the other evidence presented at trial.
The defense also raised questions about whether particular articles of clothing, including a T-shirt, had been sufficiently established as belonging to the accused. I am concerned about whether these challenges were adequately addressed and whether the prosecution’s evidence concerning the identity, ownership, and relevance of the exhibits was evaluated under the applicable rules of evidence.
Where the identity, ownership, or handling of physical evidence is disputed, those questions should be resolved through careful examination rather than assumption. The court’s reasoning should make clear how such disputes were evaluated and why the evidence was considered reliable.
3. Discrepancies Concerning the Alleged Location and Circumstances
Another significant concern involves reported discrepancies concerning the alleged location of the incident and the physical characteristics of the property in question.
Questions were raised regarding descriptions of the property, including references to a bathroom in the master bedroom and the surrounding outdoor area. Concerns have also been raised about how these descriptions compare with observations reportedly made during the proceedings.
If the physical layout of a property is relevant to the allegations, any inconsistencies between witness descriptions, the prosecution’s account, and observations of the location should be carefully examined.
Such discrepancies do not automatically establish innocence or wrongdoing. However, when they relate directly to the alleged circumstances of an offense, the court should explain how they were reconciled and what weight, if any, they carried in reaching its conclusion.
4. Questions Regarding Telephone Records and Other Corroborating Evidence
I am further concerned about questions raised regarding telephone records and their relationship to the alleged events.
According to concerns presented about the available records, the telephone evidence may not have placed Mr. Jallah near the alleged scene in the manner suggested by the prosecution’s account. The significance of these records depends on their completeness, accuracy, timing, and the precise conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from them.
Where telephone records, witness testimony, physical evidence, and other circumstances appear to conflict, a fair assessment requires the court to consider the evidence collectively and explain how material inconsistencies were resolved.
The defense’s position on such matters should not be dismissed merely because the prosecution has presented evidence supporting its case. Equally, the prosecution’s evidence should not be disregarded without proper analysis. The fundamental obligation is to assess all relevant evidence fairly and apply the appropriate standard of proof.
5. Equal Treatment of the Prosecution and the Defense
A central concern arising from this trial is whether the arguments presented by both sides received equal and impartial consideration.
The prosecution and defense must be subject to the same standards of fairness, scrutiny, and evidentiary reliability. When the defense challenges the credibility of witnesses, the identification of physical exhibits, the interpretation of forensic findings, or the consistency of the prosecution’s account, those challenges should receive reasoned consideration.
I am particularly concerned about the possibility that the court’s handling of certain evidentiary disputes and its questioning during the proceedings may have created an appearance of partiality. I am not asserting that judicial misconduct has been conclusively established. Rather, I believe the reported circumstances warrant a careful review of the trial record to determine whether the proceedings complied with the applicable legal and constitutional safeguards.
The appearance of impartiality matters because justice must not only be administered fairly but must also be seen to be administered fairly.
6. Public Confidence, Accountability, and the Rule of Law
Liberia’s justice system plays a vital role in protecting individual rights, maintaining public confidence, and reinforcing the principle that no person should be convicted except through a fair application of the law.
When serious concerns arise about the evaluation of evidence, the treatment of the defense, or the conduct of a trial, those concerns should be addressed through transparent and lawful procedures. Doing so protects not only the rights of the accused but also the credibility of the judicial system and the interests of victims and the public.
My concern is not to prejudge the underlying allegations or to suggest that every disputed piece of evidence necessarily undermines the verdict. Rather, it is to emphasize that a conviction in a serious criminal case should rest on a sound evidentiary foundation, a reasoned assessment of material contradictions, and a process that provides both parties with a fair hearing.
7. Request for Attention and Consideration
In light of these concerns, I respectfully ask the United States Embassy in Liberia and the relevant officials of the U.S. Department of State to give appropriate attention to the issues surrounding this case.
Specifically, I ask that consideration be given to:
The reported inconsistencies between the prosecution’s account, witness testimony, physical evidence, and other available records.
The treatment of the defense’s challenges to the identification, ownership, reliability, and interpretation of physical and forensic evidence.
Questions concerning the court’s handling of disputed facts and whether its conduct maintained the appearance of judicial impartiality.
The importance of ensuring that any available review or appellate process provides a meaningful opportunity to examine material legal and evidentiary concerns.
The broader implications of this case for public confidence in Liberia’s commitment to due process, judicial accountability, and the rule of law.
I make this appeal in the interest of fairness, transparency, and accountability. I believe that serious concerns about the administration of justice deserve to be examined carefully, on the basis of reliable information and the relevant legal standards.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this correspondence. I hope that the concerns outlined above will receive appropriate attention and that the principles of due process, impartiality, and the rule of law will remain central to the handling of this case.
Respectfully,
Krystle Jallah
October 27, 2026
3rd letter
Subject: Formal Expression of Concern Regarding the Conviction of Former National Security Agency Director Peter Bon Jallah on October 23, 2026
I am writing to express my serious concerns regarding the recent conviction of former National Security Agency Director Peter Bon Jallah on charges of statutory rape and kidnapping in Liberia. The proceedings before Criminal Court “E,” presided over by Judge Wesseh Alphonsus Wesseh Sr., have raised important questions about the consistency of the evidence, the treatment of the defense’s arguments, the application of evidentiary standards, and the appearance of judicial impartiality.
My purpose in writing is to call attention to concerns that, in my view, deserve careful and independent consideration. The fairness of criminal proceedings is essential to public confidence in the justice system, particularly in cases involving serious criminal allegations and individuals who have previously held positions of public responsibility.
1. Concerns Regarding Judicial Impartiality
Throughout the trial, there appeared to be inconsistencies and disputed issues that warranted careful scrutiny. However, I am concerned that the court’s handling of certain matters may not have adequately addressed the defense’s position.
A judge has an ethical and constitutional responsibility to remain impartial, evaluate the evidence objectively, and ensure that both the prosecution and the defense receive a fair opportunity to present their cases.
In this proceeding, questions have arisen about whether the defense’s arguments and challenges to the prosecution’s evidence received sufficient consideration. Reports and observations concerning the judge’s conduct during the proceedings have also raised concerns about whether the court maintained an appropriate balance between the parties.
I recognize that a judge may question witnesses and examine evidence in order to clarify disputed facts. Nevertheless, when judicial questioning or evidentiary rulings appear to favor one side, it can undermine public confidence in the neutrality of the proceedings. These concerns deserve examination based on the complete trial record.
1. Questions Concerning the Physical and Forensic Evidence
I am also concerned about the manner in which physical and forensic evidence was presented, challenged, and evaluated.
Reports from the proceedings indicated that DNA profiles recovered from several exhibits were consistent with Mr. Jallah’s DNA profile, meaning that he could not be excluded as a contributor to those samples. However, the significance of DNA evidence must be assessed in the context of all the circumstances, including the source of each exhibit, its handling and preservation, and the limitations of what the testing can establish.
A DNA match, by itself, does not necessarily establish when or how biological material was deposited. It is therefore important that the court carefully consider the relationship between forensic findings and the other evidence presented at trial.
The defense also raised questions about whether particular articles of clothing, including a T-shirt, had been sufficiently established as belonging to the accused. I am concerned about whether these challenges were adequately addressed and whether the prosecution’s evidence concerning the identity, ownership, and relevance of the exhibits was evaluated under the applicable rules of evidence.
Where the identity, ownership, or handling of physical evidence is disputed, those questions should be resolved through careful examination rather than assumption. The court’s reasoning should make clear how such disputes were evaluated and why the evidence was considered reliable.
1. Discrepancies Concerning the Alleged Location and Circumstances
Another significant concern involves reported discrepancies concerning the alleged location of the incident and the physical characteristics of the property in question.
Questions were raised regarding descriptions of the property, including references to a bathroom in the master bedroom and the surrounding outdoor area. Concerns have also been raised ab2026out how these descriptions compare with observations reportedly made during the proceedings.
If the physical layout of a property is relevant to the allegations, any inconsistencies between witness descriptions, the prosecution’s account, and observations of the location should be carefully examined.
Such discrepancies do not automatically establish innocence or wrongdoing. However, when they relate directly to the alleged circumstances of an offense, the court should explain how they were reconciled and what weight, if any, they carried in reaching its conclusion.
1. Questions Regarding Telephone Records and Other Corroborating Evidence
I am further concerned about questions raised regarding telephone records and their relationship to the alleged events.
According to concerns presented about the available records, the telephone evidence may not have placed Mr. Jallah near the alleged scene in the manner suggested by the prosecution’s account. The significance of these records depends on their completeness, accuracy, timing, and the precise conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from them.
Where telephone records, witness testimony, physical evidence, and other circumstances appear to conflict, a fair assessment requires the court to consider the evidence collectively and explain how material inconsistencies were resolved.
The defense’s position on such matters should not be dismissed merely because the prosecution has presented evidence supporting its case. Equally, the prosecution’s evidence should not be disregarded without proper analysis. The fundamental obligation is to assess all relevant evidence fairly and apply the appropriate standard of proof.
1. Equal Treatment of the Prosecution and the Defense
A central concern arising from this trial is whether the arguments presented by both sides received equal and impartial consideration.
The prosecution and defense must be subject to the same standards of fairness, scrutiny, and evidentiary reliability. When the defense challenges the credibility of witnesses, the identification of physical exhibits, the interpretation of forensic findings, or the consistency of the prosecution’s account, those challenges should receive reasoned consideration.
I am particularly concerned about the possibility that the court’s handling of certain evidentiary disputes and its questioning during the proceedings may have created an appearance of partiality. I am not asserting that judicial misconduct has been conclusively established. Rather, I believe the reported circumstances warrant a careful review of the trial record to determine whether the proceedings complied with the applicable legal and constitutional safeguards.
The appearance of impartiality matters because justice must not only be administered fairly but must also be seen to be administered fairly.
1. Public Confidence, Accountability, and the Rule of Law
Liberia’s justice system plays a vital role in protecting individual rights, maintaining public confidence, and reinforcing the principle that no person should be convicted except through a fair application of the law.
When serious concerns arise about the evaluation of evidence, the treatment of the defense, or the conduct of a trial, those concerns should be addressed through transparent and lawful procedures. Doing so protects not only the rights of the accused but also the credibility of the judicial system and the interests of victims and the public.
My concern is not to prejudge the underlying allegations or to suggest that every disputed piece of evidence necessarily undermines the verdict. Rather, it is to emphasize that a conviction in a serious criminal case should rest on a sound evidentiary foundation, a reasoned assessment of material contradictions, and a process that provides both parties with a fair hearing.
1. Request for Attention and Consideration
In light of these concerns, I respectfully ask the United States Embassy in Liberia and the relevant officials of the U.S. Department of State to give appropriate attention to the issues surrounding this case.
Specifically, I ask that consideration be given to:
The reported inconsistencies between the prosecution’s account, witness testimony, physical evidence, and other available records.
The treatment of the defense’s challenges to the identification, ownership, reliability, and interpretation of physical and forensic evidence.
Questions concerning the court’s handling of disputed facts and whether its conduct maintained the appearance of judicial impartiality.
The importance of ensuring that any available review or appellate process provides a meaningful opportunity to examine material legal and evidentiary concerns.
The broader implications of this case for public confidence in Liberia’s commitment to due process, judicial accountability, and the rule of law.
I make this appeal in the interest of fairness, transparency, and accountability. I believe that serious concerns about the administration of justice deserve to be examined carefully, based on reliable information and the relevant legal standards.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this correspondence. I hope that the concerns outlined above will receive appropriate attention and that the principles of due process, impartiality, and the rule of law will remain central to the handling of this case.
Respectfully,
Quentin Jallah, Son of Peter Jallah
Headline:
When Doubt Remains, Justice Demands Answers: The Peter Bon Jallah Case
4th letter
Subject: Formal Complaint and Request for Review of Alleged Judicial Injustice in the Trial of Peter Bon Jallah
Dear Honorable Ambassador,
I am writing to respectfully bring to your attention serious concerns regarding the verdict in the trial of Peter Bon Jallah in Liberia. I believe that significant questions remain about the fairness of the proceedings, the treatment of key evidence, and the consideration of inconsistencies that may have had a substantial impact on the outcome of the case.
The verdict has raised concerns about whether all relevant evidence was thoroughly and impartially evaluated. I respectfully request that these concerns receive appropriate attention and that the circumstances surrounding the trial be reviewed by the relevant authorities, consistent with the law and applicable judicial procedures.
First, concerns regarding the JFK Medical Center report
One of the most troubling issues concerns the medical report from JFK Medical Center. Based on my understanding of the report, there were findings regarding the alleged victim that deserved careful consideration by the court. However, I am concerned that the judge may not have adequately addressed the significance of the medical findings, particularly the reported absence of physical signs consistent with the alleged interference or tampering described in the case.
I believe that medical evidence should be carefully assessed alongside all other evidence presented at trial. Any failure to adequately explain how such evidence was considered raises legitimate questions about the reasoning behind the verdict.
Second, inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s testimony regarding the crime scene
There were also alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony concerning the location where the incident reportedly occurred. Certain details and objects described in the testimony were reportedly inconsistent with the actual conditions of the location.
These discrepancies are important because testimony concerning a crime scene should be evaluated against the available physical evidence and other verifiable facts. If material inconsistencies existed, they should have been thoroughly examined and addressed during the proceedings.
Third, concerns regarding the judge’s visit to the alleged crime scene
I understand that the judge visited the residence where the alleged incident was said to have occurred and reportedly observed circumstances that raised questions about the consistency of the victim’s statements.
If the judge personally observed discrepancies between the conditions at the residence and the testimony presented in court, it is reasonable to ask how those observations were evaluated and reflected in the court’s final decision. I am particularly concerned about whether these inconsistencies were adequately documented, considered, and addressed in the proceedings.
Any material observations made during such a visit should be handled in accordance with the applicable rules of evidence and judicial procedure. The failure to adequately address relevant discrepancies, if established by the court record, could undermine public confidence in the fairness of the trial.
Fourth, concerns regarding telephone records and the defendant’s whereabouts
Another significant concern relates to telephone records that, according to my understanding, did not place Peter Bon Jallah at the alleged crime scene at the relevant time.
If these records were properly presented and admitted into evidence, their significance should have been carefully evaluated alongside the other evidence. I am concerned that evidence potentially relevant to establishing the defendant’s whereabouts may not have received adequate consideration in reaching the verdict.
A fair judicial process requires that evidence supporting and contradicting the allegations be examined objectively, without prejudice or disregard for material facts.
A call for accountability, fairness, and judicial review
Honorable Ambassador, the combination of these concerns raises serious questions about whether the verdict in Peter Bon Jallah’s trial fully reflects the evidence presented and the requirements of a fair judicial process.
I recognize the importance of judicial independence and the sovereignty of the Republic of Liberia. Nevertheless, judicial independence must be accompanied by accountability, transparency, and a commitment to the fair administration of justice. When credible concerns arise about the treatment of medical evidence, inconsistencies in testimony, crime-scene observations, and telephone records, those concerns deserve appropriate scrutiny through the established legal mechanisms.
If material evidence was overlooked or inadequately addressed, the appropriate legal authorities should have an opportunity to examine the record and determine whether the proceedings and verdict complied with the law. Any substantiated departure from applicable judicial standards should be addressed through the proper disciplinary or appellate procedures.
I therefore respectfully request that the United States Embassy in Monrovia:
1 Take note of the concerns surrounding the trial and verdict in the case of Peter Bon Jallah.
2 Consider whether appropriate diplomatic or human-rights channels are available to raise concerns about the fairness of the proceedings, consistent with the Embassy’s mandate.
3 Encourage appropriate attention to due process and judicial accountability through lawful and established channels, where appropriate.
4 Direct these concerns to relevant organizations or authorities, if the Embassy is unable to intervene directly, so that the matter may receive proper consideration.
My intention in raising these concerns is not to undermine the Liberian judicial system but to advocate for fairness, accountability, and public confidence in the administration of justice. No person should be deprived of a fair hearing, and no material evidence should be disregarded without appropriate consideration.
The integrity of the justice system depends on the impartial evaluation of evidence, the careful examination of inconsistencies, and the willingness of the appropriate authorities to address credible concerns when they arise.
I respectfully urge your office to give this matter the attention it deserves and to advise whether there are appropriate avenues through which these concerns can be brought to the attention of the relevant authorities.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope that this appeal will contribute to a fair and transparent examination of the issues surrounding Peter Bon Jallah’s trial.
Yours respectfully,
Peter Jallah, Son. Of Peter Jallah
About the Author
