The removal of Montserrado County District 10 Representative Yekeh Kolubah is not an isolated disciplinary act. It is a symptom of a deeper and more dangerous trend: the steady erosion of democratic norms under the Joseph Boakai administration and a troubling readiness — whether by design or negligence — to invite unrest by silencing dissent rather than addressing the grievances that give rise to it.
At its core, representative democracy depends on protecting robust, even uncomfortable, political speech. The framers of liberal constitutional orders understood this: speech that challenges government policy, alleges failures, or even states uncomfortable truths is the lifeblood of accountability.
That principle protects not because every statement is true, but because allowing governments to police political speech invites censorship, selective enforcement, and repression.
Democracies do not cure falsehoods by expelling critics — they confront them in open debate, independent investigations, and transparent lawmaking.
What happened here departs from that logic. Amid mounting public anxiety over the presence of Guinean forces on Liberia’s northern frontier — and unanswered questions about alleged mineral exploitation and displacement of villagers — the government’s top legal voice issued a veiled warning to silence criticism as potentially “inflammatory.”
Within weeks, Representative Kolubah was expelled after police leadership pushed treason charges over an alleged statement disputing Liberian sovereignty over the land.
He denies making that statement. No public legislative hearings have examined the substance of the occupation, nor has anyone been held accountable for the apparent failures of intelligence, or for the possible exploitation on the Makona River. Yet, the lawmaker’s seat was vacated.
This sequence is morally and politically wrong on multiple levels.
It inverts priorities. The state’s first duty is to investigate credible claims that national territory is under foreign occupation and that citizens are being displaced. Instead, priority was placed on silencing a legislator whose words — if inaccurate — should have been addressed through debate, correction, or due process, not expulsion.
It weaponizes the security apparatus. When the Inspector General leads a campaign to criminalize political speech and the Attorney General signals punitive intentions toward critics, law enforcement becomes a political instrument rather than a protector of public safety. The violent policing of protests and the tear-gassing of an unarmed lawmaker in his constituency compound the sense that the state is using force to deter civic engagement.
It undermines institutional safeguards. Expelling a representative on shaky grounds without full, transparent inquiry erodes legislative independence and chills the willingness of other lawmakers and citizens to speak out. That chilling effect corrodes the “marketplace of ideas” essential to finding truth and holding power to account.
It invites unrest. Silencing legitimate grievances doesn’t eliminate them; it drives them underground or onto the streets. The administration’s intolerance of dissent and its reflex to punish — rather than investigate — deepen public frustration, increasing the risk of unrest that the government claims to fear.
The moral case against this expulsion is straightforward. Free expression is not merely a convenient political tool; it is a right grounded in human dignity and civic equality. Punishing a representative for speech related to a matter of public concern — especially while the substantive concerns (foreign troop presence, displacement, possible resource exploitation) remain unexamined — is an affront to fair process and to the democratic compact between rulers and the ruled.
We should also heed calls for humane and rights-respecting governance when security challenges arise.
This is how Roman Catholic Pope Leo XIV puts it while on his apostolic journey in Cameroon:
“Just and credible institutions become pillars of stability. Public authorities are called to serve as bridges, never as sources of division, even when insecurity seems prevalent.
“Security is a priority, but it must always be exercised with respect for human rights. Authentic peace arises when everyone feels protected, heard and respected, when the law serves as a secure safeguard against the whims of the rich and powerful.”
These are not lofty abstractions but practical prescriptions: a state that silences inquiry in the name of order sacrifices the stability it professes to protect.
Revoke the expulsion and launch a credible inquiry into the Guinean presence on Liberian soil, the allegations of mining on the Makona River, and the intelligence and policy failures that allowed the situation to develop.
History will judge governments less by their pronouncements about security than by how they respond to dissent. A democracy that builds walls against criticism is not protecting itself. It is dismantling the very foundations that justify its authority.
The Boakai administration can still choose accountability and transparency over repression. Choosing otherwise will not keep the peace. It will only inflame the unrest it claims to prevent.
