February 15, 2026: For the reason that Supreme Courtroom of Liberia rendered its choice sentencing Prophet Key to 6 months’ imprisonment for contempt of courtroom, various views have been expressed throughout our nation. Some have defended the ruling. Others have criticized it strongly. In a democracy, that variety of opinion is wholesome.
As somebody who teaches Constitutional Legislation, Human Rights Legislation, Felony Legislation, and Legislation and Politics on the legislation faculties in Liberia, I think about it my public responsibility to advertise understanding of our legislation. For that cause, I’ve determined to interact in public schooling on the legislation of contempt in Liberia. I’m not doing so as a way to defend any explicit final result, to not defend the judiciary per se, however to make clear the authorized ideas concerned in order that our individuals could interact in knowledgeable democratic discourse.
Democracy thrives on disagreement. It doesn’t thrive on destruction.
My Report on Free Speech — Context Issues
Over time, I’ve criticized choices of the Supreme Courtroom of Liberia in lots of instances. I’ve disagreed with reasoning, interpretation, and outcomes. However I’ve by no means accomplished so in language that undermines the dignity, legitimacy, or institutional relevance of the Courtroom.
That distinction issues.
There isn’t a lawyer in Liberia who has defended freedom of speech and of the press on a professional bono foundation extra persistently than I’ve. Lengthy earlier than holding public workplace, I fought in courtroom to safe the discharge of journalists and outspoken political activists who have been jailed for speech-related offenses.
In 2006, when President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf supplied me the place of Affiliate Justice of the Supreme Courtroom, I declined. I selected as an alternative to function Solicitor Common. I advised her clearly that my cause for declining was that I believed I may higher defend freedom of speech and freedom of the press from that place. She agreed with my reasoning.
In 2009, whereas serving as Solicitor Common of Liberia, I may have prosecuted people below the legal guidelines of Sedition, Felony Libel towards the President, and Felony Malevolence. As a substitute, I drafted and circulated the unique proposal to repeal these legal guidelines and submitted it to the President, the Press Union of Liberia, and members of the Legislature.
I recount these info to not boast, however to determine precept: I’ve persistently stood on the aspect of free speech. However I don’t stand for recklessness and indecency, as a result of reckless speech can undermine democracy itself.
Disagreement is the kernel of democracy.
However decency is the inspiration of democratic stability.
The Constitutional Framework
Article 15 of the Structure ensures freedom of speech and of the press. However it additionally makes the speaker accountable for the abuse of that freedom. Freedom in a constitutional democracy is rarely with out duty.
The Structure additionally gives lawful mechanisms for judicial accountability, together with impeachment earlier than the Nationwide Legislature. If there’s credible proof {that a} decide or justice has engaged in corruption or misconduct, the treatment is constitutional course of — not inflammatory denunciation.
Historical past gives an instance. In the course of the administration of President Samuel Okay. Doe, impeachment proceedings have been reportedly contemplated towards the Nagbe Bench on allegations of corruption. Earlier than such proceedings have been filed, the Justices resigned — to the amazement of the Liberian Nationwide Bar Affiliation and the general public. No matter one’s view of that episode, it demonstrates that our Structure gives institutional mechanisms for addressing judicial misconduct.
The rule of legislation calls for course of, not provocation.
What Is Contempt of Courtroom?
Usually, contempt of courtroom is conduct that tends to:
a. Carry the authority and administration of the legislation into disrespect or disregard;
b. Intrude with or prejudice events or witnesses throughout litigation;
c. Impede, embarrass, or impede the courtroom within the discharge of its duties.
The Supreme Courtroom of Liberia has persistently outlined contempt in these phrases.
Contempt is just not about defending private delight. It’s about defending the administration of justice.
Courts don’t possess armies. They depend on public confidence. If public confidence collapses, the rule of legislation collapses.
The Scott & Roberts Case (1984)
In In re Scott & Roberts (1984), the Minister of Justice publicly declared:
“Public confidence within the Liberian Judicial System is at its lowest ebb ever because of the unprofessional tendency of most judges within the dealing with of instances; that latest each day reviews reaching me from purchasers of a number of attorneys converse of attorneys and judges soliciting funds from purchasers however failing to ship companies. It’s simpler in the present day in Liberia to prosecute a poor man efficiently towards authorities and win the case because of the unprofessional apply of most judges, than to convict a wealthy man within the courtroom of legislation. By no means in latest instances has a so-called wealthy man misplaced a case earlier than our courts, because of the excessive charge of financial and particular person curiosity amongst attorneys. If funds have been obtainable to maintain surveillance on jury tampering, bribery, amongst others, rather a lot can be found involving some well-known judges. Judges generally tend to individualize issues; and there are only a few professionals within the nation in the present day.”
These weren’t criticisms of authorized reasoning in a selected case. They have been sweeping allegations of corruption, bribery, jury tampering, and bias directed on the judiciary as an establishment.
The Supreme Courtroom held that criticism of judicial choices is permissible. However statements charging the judiciary with corruption and improper motives with out proof are inclined to destroy public confidence within the administration of justice and due to this fact represent contempt.
The Minister was disbarred for 2 years. The newspaper editor was fined.
Public workplace didn’t grant immunity.
The Jallah Case (1987)
In In re Joseph Okay. Jallah (1987), the respondent wrote:
“One humorous facet of the Supreme Courtroom’s choice was the unfair, undemocratic and unconstitutional debarment of three attorneys, particularly: Koenig, Supuwood and Garlawolo. What’s unbelievable and unconstitutional in regards to the ban is that the stated attorneys have been by no means events to any battle earlier than the Supreme Courtroom.”
He additional referred to the ruling as:
“the debarment process for legislation not noticed by the Supreme Courtroom in its ‘Kangaro’s choice.’”
And concluded:
“Primarily based upon the above evaluation and info, it’s clear that the Supreme Courtroom’s choice has no iota of authorized deserves. And one can most likely infer that it’s extra political since in reality and in reality some members of the Courtroom initially belonged to N.D.P.L., as argued by Mr. Kpolleh.”
The Courtroom held that such language uncovered the Courtroom to scandal and mock and introduced the administration of justice into disrepute.
When the respondent later apologized, the Courtroom cited In re Caranda (1944):
“Disclaimer of intentional disrespect or design to embarrass the due administration of justice is not any excuse, particularly the place the info constituting the contempt are admitted…”
Apology could mitigate punishment; it doesn’t purge contempt.
Why Is the Courtroom Each Accuser and Choose in Contempt?
Some members of the general public have requested why the Courtroom that cites an individual for contempt can also be the decide in that continuing.
The reply lies within the frequent legislation custom.
From England to America, and from America to Liberia, contempt has at all times been handled as an inherent judicial energy. The courtroom whose authority is challenged should have the authority to vindicate that authority. In any other case, judicial independence would depend upon one other department of presidency.
In In re the Constitutionality of Sections 12.5 and 12.6 of the Judiciary Legislation (1975), the Legislature tried to outline legal contempt and restrict the punishment the Supreme Courtroom may impose. The Courtroom declared these provisions unconstitutional insofar as they utilized to the Supreme Courtroom. It held that its authentic jurisdiction, together with the facility to punish for contempt, is impartial of legislative motion. Contempts are sui generis — neither purely civil nor purely legal and the facility to punish contempt is a vital ingredient of judicial authority. A statute inconsistent with that authority is void ab initio.
Thus, the Courtroom defines what constitutes contempt inside constitutional limits and determines punishment. This precept is central to the frequent legislation custom.
The Authorized Line
The Supreme Courtroom has made it clear:
Not each criticism is contempt.
Extreme criticism confined to info and authorized reasoning is permissible.
A citizen could say:
a. “The Courtroom misinterpreted the Structure.”
b. “The bulk erred.”
c. “This choice needs to be reversed.”
However what crosses the road is speech that:
a. Accuses judges of corruption with out proof;
b. Attributes choices to political motives with out proof;
c. Makes use of abusive language designed to ridicule or delegitimize the Courtroom;
d. Creates mistrust that undermines public confidence.
Contempt doesn’t require proof that justice was really obstructed. It’s enough if the conduct tends to undermine the administration of justice.
Conclusion: The Democratic Accountability We All Share
The aim of this commentary has not been to defend people, nor to silence criticism. It has been to make clear the legislation and to advertise constitutional understanding. A democracy grows stronger when its residents perceive each their rights and their tasks.
Courts should train their authority with knowledge and restraint. Residents should train their freedoms with self-discipline and duty. The press should report boldly however pretty. Attorneys should advocate passionately however ethically. Non secular leaders should converse courageously however prudently. Politicians should lead firmly however constitutionally.
All actors within the democratic area in Liberia, together with judges, attorneys, journalists, spiritual leaders, politicians, and residents alike, should commit themselves to constructing a tradition of peace, duty, and constitutional self-discipline, not recklessness in any form, method, or kind.
Democracy is just not sustained by noise, however by maturity; not by provocation, however by precept.
We should keep in mind that establishments are usually not summary concepts. They’re the pillars that maintain up our collective freedoms. After we weaken them by reckless speech or conduct, we weaken ourselves. After we strengthen them by disciplined engagement and lawful accountability, we strengthen the Republic.
Freedom and order are usually not enemies. They’re companions within the structure of constitutional democracy.
If Liberia is to proceed constructing a vibrant democratic society, we should elevate our discourse, deepen our understanding of the legislation, and anchor our disagreements in respect for the establishments that defend our liberties.
That’s how democracies endure. That’s how nations mature. And that’s the collective duty we share.
