Liberia: Do Not Mistake The Terms “Accuse” with “Abuse” or “Insult ” Under Both the New Penal Law of Liberia and the Kamara Abdullah Act of 2019.

By Prof Dr Cllr Arthur T. Johnson

The Kamara Abdullah Kamara Act of Press Freedom was enacted in 2019.

The KAMARA ABDULLAH KAMARA ACT OF PRESS “FREEDOM” Section 2: Repealed specific provisions of the 1978 Penal Law.

Section 11.11: Criminal Libel Against the President

Section 11.12: Sedition

Section 11.14: Criminal Malevolence

This legislation is intended solely to protect journalistic freedom. The act’s specific provisions aimed to prevent the President of Liberia and officials from the three branches of government from criminalizing speech directed against them. That is when they are charged with libel and slander, regardless of the circumstances.

A FUNDAMENTAL DICHOTOMY EXISTS BETWEEN ACCUSATIONS AND INSULTS. THE ACT DOES NOT PERMIT ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS OR SOCIETY TO ABUSE OR INSULT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS; IT STATES THAT THEY MAY BE ACCUSED. THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN “ACCUSE” AND “INSULT”, “ABUSE”, OR THE USE OF “PROFANE LANGUAGE” TOWARD A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. Government officials did not assume office to endure abuse or insult; instead, they may be subject to criticism.

Criticism differs from abuse or insult. This constitutes a crime, and when directed against a Legislator, it amounts to contempt of the Legislator or Legislature. Utilization against the Court or a sitting Judge or Justice of the Honourable Supreme Court constitutes criminal contempt of the Supreme Court. Disobedience of a court order is not a prerequisite for contempt of court. Criminal contempt of court differs from civil contempt.

WHAT LIBERIAN LAW SAYS ABOUT CONTEMPT OF COURT

(Civil Contempt versus Criminal Contempt)

Liberian law employs contempt of court to safeguard the authority, dignity, and orderly administration of justice within the judiciary. A doctrinal distinction exists between civil contempt and criminal contempt with respect to intent, method, and consequences.

The Civil Procedure Law and Criminal Procedure Law of Liberia both acknowledge contempt powers. The Supreme Court of Liberia has consistently asserted that contempt authority is an intrinsic judicial power essential for maintaining the rule of law and judicial independence.

Civil Contempt

Definition and Objective: Civil contempt is not intended as a punitive measure; rather, its purpose is to compel compliance with a court order or ruling. The objective of the proceeding is to assist the opposing party rather than to reinforce the court’s authority.

Civil contempt typically occurs when an individual fails to comply with a court order, neglects to produce papers, does not satisfy a monetary judgment, or violates custody or property regulations. The primary objective of civil contempt is to compel adherence; the recipient is the opposing party; the character of the contempt is coercive; the duration of the contempt (the sanction concludes upon compliance); and the standard of proof is the preponderance of the evidence. The saying “The contemnor holds the keys to his own prison” signifies that the individual in contempt has the means to liberate themselves from their predicament.

This type of contempt occurs when the defendant fails to comply with an injunction or order issued by a Circuit Court or any other court. The judge may mandate the defendant’s incarceration until compliance is achieved. Upon the contemnor’s compliance, their release is granted.

A private individual affected by contemptuous conduct can often report it to the court. See Richardson et al v Gbassie [1962] LRSC 8; 15 LLR 50 (1962) (1 June 1962). Occasionally, contemptuous acts may occur outside of judicial proceedings. In Bong Mining Co. v Cooper et al [1989] LRSC 34; 36 LLR 452 (1989) (14 July 1989), the Supreme Court articulated that “When an individual is summoned by writ of summons, based on the information or complaint of a party involved in a proceeding, to appear and respond to a charge of contempt for violating a court order that benefits said party, the writ of summons must specify a date and time for filing the return; following the expiration of this date and time, a formal notice of assignment should be issued, served, and returned, designating a date and time for the contempt hearing.”

To clarify, even in civil contempt, the authority to adjudicate contempt is “an inherent judicial power of the court.” The contemnor is provided with legal representation and is allowed to be heard, with the court rendering its verdict in accordance with the contempt procedures.

Criminal Contempt

Definition and Objective: Criminal contempt has a punitive function. The objective is to penalize noncompliance, affirm the court’s authority, and maintain public trust in the judiciary. It pertains to behavior that impedes justice or demonstrates blatant disdain towards the court. The judge constitutes the court. The Justices of the Supreme Court constitute the court. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Liberia is the court’s highest authority. The Associate Justices and the Chief Justice constitute a Full Bench of the Supreme Court.

The adjudication of contempt does not require the commission of the act in the presence of the court. Contempt of Court is defined as any behavior that obstructs the court’s operations, diminishes the court’s integrity, undermines its dignity, or disrupts its proceedings, hence constituting criminal contempt. The Judges or Justices of the Supreme Court embody the authority and prestige of the Court in both law and practice. A contemptuous act against the Court need not be carried out in open court to constitute criminal contempt of the Supreme Court.

Typical scenarios that may result in criminal contempt include disparaging the court or its judges, interrupting court proceedings, disregarding a legitimate court order after receiving a warning, disseminating information that obstructs ongoing procedures, or engaging in actions that impede justice, particularly in the case of the Supreme Court and its Justices.

My primary concern is engaging in acts that degrade the integrity and dignity of the court, specifically the first issue: disrespecting the court. Criticism of the court is permissible, but insults directed at it or its justices are not acceptable. The Freedom of Speech Act of 2019 (KAMARA ACT) clarifies that press freedom allows free speech, but not insults, abusive language, or immoral language against anyone. This Act derives its authority from Article 15 of the Constitution of Liberia, which states:

All individuals possess the right to free speech; however, they bear full accountability for its misuse. The government may not limit, restrict, or impede this right except during an emergency declared in accordance with this Constitution (Liberian Constitution, Chapter III, Article 15 (1986)).

In Firestone Plantations Co. v. RL [1988] LRSC 9; 34 LLR 614 (1988) (25 February 1988), the Supreme Court of Liberia stated that “Criminal contempt proceedings are instituted to uphold the authority and restore the dignity of the court, as well as to penalize disobedience of its orders. They are inherently criminal and punitive in nature and governance.”

In re Judicial Law 12.5 & 12.6 [1975] LRSC 3; 24 LLR 37 (1975) (February 19, 1975), regarding the constitutionality of Sections 12.5 and 12.6 of the Judiciary Law, enacted on May 10, 1972.

The Supreme Court of Liberia issued rulings on February 10, 1975, and subsequently on February 19, 1975. The court said that “The Supreme Court’s original authority, including the power to punish for contempt, works on its own and cannot be changed by laws; Contempts are unique and not simply civil or criminal.”

Generally, contempt of court means actions that disrespect the court’s authority, disrupt legal proceedings, or make it harder for the court to do its job; the ability to punish for contempt is a key part of the court’s power.

The court asserts that the Judiciary does not require authorization from either the Executive or Legislative branches of government to possess this power. The Supreme Court serves as the final authority on all legal and judicial issues, encompassing both appellate and original jurisdiction.

It retains original jurisdiction in numerous cases, including contempt proceedings against the Supreme Court of Liberia. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Honourable Supreme Court of Liberia are integral to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court comprises five members, including the Chief Justice. This is referred to as “En Banc.”

In In re Parker [2010] LRSC 8 (21 January 2010), the Supreme Court asserted its inherent authority, including contempt powers, to penalize for criminal contempt of court. The defendant was found guilty of criminal contempt for insulting Justice Wolokolie of the Supreme Court and exhibiting unreasonable and unprovoked disdain for her. This case exemplifies an individual outside the courthouse who taunts and disrespects a Justice of the Court, leading to criminal contempt charges.

In a contempt proceeding, the court, namely the presiding judge or Justice, serves as the offender, as this authority is intrinsic to the court and fundamentally judicial. The components of criminal contempt consist of intent to punish; beneficiary, the State/Court; type, punitive; duration, a specified term; and standard of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Criminal contempt, as a form of punishment, is subject to the same constitutional protections as criminal prosecutions. Chapter 12, Section 12.5, Title 17 of the Liberian Revised Code of Law delineates the criteria for Criminal Contempt of Court. It states:

Section 12.5. Courts possess the authority to penalize individuals for criminal contempt.

1. Actions constituting criminal contempt: Any court may impose sanctions for criminal contempt if an individual engages in the following actions and no others:

Disorderly, disrespectful, or impolite conduct that immediately interrupts its proceedings or diminishes the respect owed to its authority.

(b) Violation of the peace, excessive noise, or any disturbance that immediately interrupts its proceedings or diminishes the respect owed to its authority.

(c) Intentional defiance or opposition to its legitimate directive, excluding cases involving an individual who ignores a summons in circumstances where a writ of arrest is expressly authorized by law.

(d) Declining to take an oath as a witness or to respond to any lawful and appropriate inquiries after having been sworn in;

(e) Disseminating a false or significantly inaccurate account of its proceedings; but, a court cannot penalize an individual for criminal contempt for publishing a fair and precise record of a trial, argument, decision, or other proceeding.

2. The defendant is entitled to a defense, but if the offense occurred in the presence of the court, the court may impose immediate sentencing. If the offense was not perpetrated in the presence of the court, the defendant must be informed of the allegation and afforded a reasonable period to present a defense.

Liberian law characterizes civil contempt as coercive and conditional, intended to secure compliance with court rulings. In contrast, criminal contempt is punitive and absolute, intended to maintain the authority and dignity of the judiciary. Both are vital to the administration of justice, yet they operate under fundamentally different legal concepts.

WHAT IS THE IMPLICATION OF REVOKING SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE PENAL CODE THAT PENALIZE CRIMINAL LIBEL AGAINST THE PRESIDENT,SEDITION, AND CRIMINAL MALEVOLENCE AS STIPULATED IN THE KAMARA ACT OF 2019?

The Kamara Act of 2019: This does not imply the absence of repercussions for its misuse. Insulting or abusing a public official may result in legal action by the government for criminal coercion or criminal harassment. The Act did not eliminate criminal coercion and harassment, contrary to widespread misconceptions.

Chapter 14, Sections 14.27 and 14.28 of Liberia’s criminal Law address criminal compulsion and harassment as follows:

Section 14.27. Criminal Coercion:

1. An individual is culpable of criminal coercion if he threatens to commit an unlawful act to compel another individual to act or refrain from acting.

(a) Violate any statute; or

(b) Accuse an individual of committing a crime; or

(c) Disclose any confidential information or disseminate a purported truth that may incite animosity, disdain, or ridicule against an individual, or adversely affect their credit or professional reputation.

2. Defense. If the actor perceived the accusation, secret, or asserted fact as truthful and aimed solely to compel the other individual to behave in accordance with the implications of the accusation or exposure—such as ceasing further misconduct, rectifying a wrongdoing, or refraining from actions or responsibilities deemed beyond the other person’s capabilities—then he possesses a defense against prosecution under paragraphs (b) or (c) of paragraph 1.

I am concerned with Section “b”, which states that if you accuse anyone of a crime. If you allege that a government official or any individual has committed a crime without substantiating evidence, the accused has the right to initiate legal action under Section 14.27 of the Criminal Law of Liberia, which addresses “Criminal Coercion.” Consequently, you must refrain from making statements that could implicate you in criminal coercion.

A government official may initiate legal action against an individual for harassment if the individual is utilizing free speech as a pretext.

New Penal Law Section 14.28. Harassment.

Someone perpetrates a second-degree misdemeanor if they act to intimidate or disturb another person.

(a) Dispatches a written menace to perpetrate any violent offense;

(b) Initiates a call without disclosing their identity or with excessively offensive language; or

(c) Repeatedly initiates calls without engaging in conversation and without a legitimate purpose.

The Kamara Act appears to have failed to eliminate criminal coercion and criminal harassment. If free speech transgresses specific criminal statutes, the individual may be prosecuted for an offense.

The Kamara Abdullah Act abrogated specific provisions of Liberia’s Penal Law.

Section 11.11. Criminal libel against the President constitutes a criminal offense [REPEALED].

One. Transgression. An individual has perpetrated a first-degree misdemeanor if he publicly disseminates any written material or makes any public broadcast accusing the sitting President of the Republic of Liberia of engaging in conduct that constitutes a criminal offense, contingent upon the timing of such publication:

(a) The alleged behavior is untrue, and the individual responsible is aware of its falsity; and

The actor aims to damage the President’s reputation.

Two. Definitions. In this segment, the phrase

(a) “Writing” refers to any form of inscription, illustration, engraving, or representation resembling the President.

(a) “Public broadcast” refers to disseminating information to the public via audio or visual channels.

Section 11.12. Sedition [REPEALED].

1. Transgression. A person who owes loyalty to Liberia has perpetrated sedition, a second-degree felony, if

(a) He advocates for sectionalism, countyism, tribalism, parochialism, or a similar ideology through speech, writing, or other actions, aiming to provoke animosity, foster dissension among the populace, and divide the Nation; or

(b) He advocates for revolt, incites it, or otherwise promotes insurrection against the authority of the Republic; or

(c) He composes or commissions another individual to write a letter to a foreign government, corporation, or any of its officials, articulating a statement regarding any issues now under investigation and resolution inside the firm; or

(d) He charges the present President of Liberia with violating his oath of office, provided that (1) the alleged conduct is untrue and (2) the accuser intends to damage the President’s reputation and diminish the esteem of the Presidency.

2. Assessment. If an individual is convicted of sedition, they may be incarcerated as outlined in Sections 50.5 and 51.3.

Section 11.14. Malice Aforethought

1. Transgression. An individual has perpetrated a first-degree misdemeanor if he alleges, through verbal communication, written expression, or public dissemination, that any executive authority, judicial authority, legislative member, or other public official has engaged in conduct amounting to a criminal act; provided that at the time of such allegation:

The alleged behavior is false and

(b) The actor aims to damage the official’s reputation, so undermining his official standing.

(c) “Word-of-mouth” refers to the act of conveying information or disseminating it through verbal communication.

(d) “Writing” refers to any written composition, engraving, illustration, or sculpture created by a government official; and

(e) “Public broadcast” refers to any audio or visual content sent via public channels.

The term “accuse” constitutes the essential element of the Kamara Act. It states that one cannot be apprehended for making accusations against the president or any other official within the three branches of government. It does not state that one cannot be arrested for using offensive words, insults, or abusive language directed at government personnel or officials. The pivotal term in these regulations is “ACCUSES”, rather than “INSULTS”, “DEGRADES”, or “ABUSES” government officials.

The Act does not exempt the ACCUSED from liability. If you allege that a government official has committed a crime and that official believes your assertion is untrue and seeks to tarnish your reputation, they may initiate a civil lawsuit against you under Tort law for damages related to libel or slander. Criminal coercion and harassment may result in legal action if you employ abusive language or make slanderous or libelous remarks against any government official.

The Kamara Abdullah Kamara Act of Press Freedom signifies a significant advancement in the evolution of constitutional democracy in the Republic of Liberia. The Act, enacted in 2019, abolished several provisions of the 1978 Penal Law that rendered it unlawful to criticize or charge public authorities, particularly the President of Liberia.

The Act does not authorize individuals to mistreat, abuse, insult, demean, or intimidate public officials. Instead, it established a legal and doctrinal distinction between:

1. i) Accusations of wrongdoing (irrespective of their veracity or precision), and
2. ii) Intimidation, duress, or maltreatment of public authorities.

This distinction is important when determining the Act’s appropriate scope and limitations. These regulations rendered certain forms of speech aimed at the President and other public authorities unlawful.

New Penal Law of Liberia, Chapter 11, Section 11.11 – Criminal Libel Against the President (REPEALED)

Publicly accusing the current President of a crime constitutes a misdemeanor under this section.

The assertion was untrue.

1. ii) The performer was aware that it was false, and

The objective was to damage the President’s reputation.

The repeal eliminated the only criminal protection that the President possessed regarding his reputation.

Chapter 11, Section 11.12 of the New Penal Law of Liberia – Sedition (REPEALED)

This regulation rendered the subsequent actions unlawful:

1. i) Advocacy perceived as divisive (sectionalism, tribalism, etc.),
2. ii) Allegations against the President intended to incite public animosity towards him,

iii) Engaging with foreign governments over domestic affairs,

1. iv) Endorsement of revolt or uprising.

The ambiguous phrasing restricted political expression and democratic conversation.

New Penal Law of Liberia, Chapter 11, Section 11.14 – Criminal Malevolence (REPEALED)

This clause criminalizes the making of false claims against executive, legislative, or judicial officials.

The allegation was unfounded, and

The objective was to damage the official’s reputation.

Once more, the term with significance in the law was “accused.”

The fundamental distinction lies between an accusation and an insult.

A fundamental concept underlying the Act is the distinction between:

1. Allegation

An allegation indicates that a public official has either engaged in misconduct or violated the law.

2. Insult, Demeaning, or Maltreatment

Language intended to demean, intimidate, frighten, or persecute an official.

The annulled provisions rendered specific allegations unlawful. The Act abolished criminal consequences for alleging misconduct against public officials.

However, the Act did not:

1. i) Legalize threats
2. ii) Legalize coercion

iii) Legalize harassment

1. iv) Abolish civil remedies for slander, and
2. v) Legalize the use of abusive, insulting, or vulgar language against individuals in Liberia.

The repeal addressed sedition and criminal defamation, rather than misconduct.

Remaining Issues: Harassment and Criminal Coercion

The Act did not abolish specific provisions of Chapter 14 of the Penal Law.

Chapter 14, Section 14.27 – Criminal Coercion

When an individual threatens to engage in illegal activities, falsely accuses another of a crime, or discloses facts to incite hatred or scorn, they are perpetrating criminal coercion.

Coercion requires i) the aim to influence conduct and ii) the use of threats as leverage. This rule is fully enforceable against any individual, including members of the press, who may use accusations to coerce behavior improperly.

Chapter 14, Section 14.28: Harassment

Harassment encompasses i) written threats to perpetrate violent felonies, ii) anonymous harassing phone calls, and iii) incessant calls lacking a legitimate purpose for discussion, all of which are prohibited. This section pertains to intimidation and harassment, rather than safeguarded political critique.

Civil liability still applies: Even though criminal libel laws have been removed, i) public officials can still file civil defamation lawsuits (libel or slander) under tort law; ii) they can seek damages if a claim is shown to be false and done with bad intent; and iii) the responsibility to prove the claim now falls on the individuals involved instead of the State in a criminal case.

The Act shifts the emphasis in speech restrictions from criminal sanctions to civil accountability.

The repeal aligns Liberia with constitutional democracies that lack criminal defamation provisions aimed at suppressing criticism of public officials. The Act strengthens important democratic values, such as: Everyone is treated equally under the law – Public officials can no longer avoid criminal charges for accusations; Holding leaders accountable – Citizens and journalists can question leaders without fear of being jailed; Fairness – False claims can lead to civil penalties, but do not automatically result in criminal charges; Keeping public order – Laws against threats and harassment are still in place to prevent abuse.

Clarifying Misinterpretations: It is legally erroneous to assert that the Act: i) permits insults directed at authorities, citizens, or individuals; ii) eliminates all repercussions for defamatory speech; iii) abrogates illegal coercion or harassment.

The Act eliminated criminal sanctions for accusations against public officials. The term “accuses” constituted the most significant aspect of the abrogated statutes. The law does not authorize insults or abusive language directed at people or government officials; separate statutes, where applicable, govern such matters. In other words, the Freedom Act protects responsible, accountable free speech. It does not authorize abuse of politicians, government officials, citizens of Liberia, or all its inhabitants.

CONCLUSION

The Kamara Abdullah Kamara Act of Press Freedom does not safeguard individuals who perpetrate abuse or threats against others. It renders unlawful the accusation of public officials’ misconduct, thereby fortifying democracy and press freedom. The legislation establishes a constitutional equilibrium:

1. i) Accusations → exempt from criminalization

Abuse, insults, abusive language, coercion, and harassment remain criminal offenses.

False defamatory statements are actionable in civil court.

This distinction safeguards both press freedom and public order, ensuring that liberty does not devolve into anarchy and authority does not escalate into oppression.

Furthermore, the misconduct against a government official may potentially be subject to criminal prosecution for coercion and harassment. The misconduct (abuse, insult, use of invectives) against a Judge, Court, or Justice of the Supreme Court can be adjudicated by the very court that is disrespected or maligned, with the right to impose both criminal and civil sanctions being intrinsic to the court’s judicial power. In this instance, regarding the Supreme Court, the Court possesses the jurisdiction, by virtue of its inherent judicial power and through its interpretative rulings, to impose sanctions for contempt.

They will grant due process. For instance, it compels the contemnor to justify why they cannot be held in contempt, establishes a hearing date, appoints legal counsel on your behalf if you are impoverished, notifies you of the contemptuous act, and considers your plea. Pleading guilty establishes the sentencing date. THE SUPREME COURT OF LIBERIA ACKNOWLEDGED THESE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, AND THEY WERE METICULOUSLY ADHERED TO.

SO, THE KAMARA PRESS FREEDOM ACT OF 2019 UNDERSCORES THE WORD “ACCUSE” TO BE PROTECTED. IT DID NOT AUTHORIZE OR LEGALIZE THE USE OF INSULTS, ABUSE, AND THE USE OF INVECTIVES!