An Academic Article on the Proper Relationship Between Political Leadership, Law Enforcement, National Security, and Social Media
Abstract
The effectiveness of a democratic state depends significantly on the ability of its law enforcement and national security institutions to conduct investigations without improper political interference, while simultaneously remaining accountable to the Constitution, the courts, and the people.
In Liberia, this principle is particularly important because the country continues to strengthen institutions responsible for public safety, criminal investigation, national security, and the protection of constitutional rights.
The growing influence of social media has introduced a new dimension to this relationship. Political leaders, public officials, journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens can now comment instantly on allegations, arrests, investigations, and security operations.
While freedom of expression and the public’s right to information are fundamental democratic values, social media should not replace professional investigation, evidence gathering, judicial proceedings, or institutional accountability.
This article argues that social media is a communication and public-discourse platform, not an investigative institution or courtroom. Investigations require professional procedures, intelligence collection, evidence preservation, interviews, forensic analysis, verification, documentation, and legal review.
The Liberia National Police Act assigns the Liberia National Police responsibilities that include preventing and deterring crime, conducting investigations, apprehending offenders, gathering and analyzing information, protecting fundamental rights, and providing forensic services. The 1986 Constitution of Liberia simultaneously guarantees freedom of expression, privacy, due process, protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and other fundamental rights.
The article therefore calls upon Liberian political leaders to respect the professional responsibilities of security and law enforcement institutions while demanding accountability through lawful mechanisms.
It also calls upon security institutions to earn public confidence through professionalism, integrity, transparency, impartiality, confidentiality, and respect for human rights. The central argument is that political leaders should not politicize investigations, security institutions should not become instruments of political power, and social media should not become a substitute for evidence-based criminal justice.
Keywords: Liberia, national security, law enforcement, criminal investigation, social media, political interference, due process, police professionalism, accountability, rule of law, democratic governance.
Introduction
The strength of a democratic society is not measured merely by the existence of laws, police officers, courts, politicians, or security institutions. It is measured by whether those institutions are capable of performing their constitutional and statutory responsibilities professionally, independently, fairly, and within the law.
In Liberia, this principle is particularly important because the country has experienced periods in which political authority, security institutions, and the administration of justice became deeply intertwined. The post-war democratic period has therefore placed considerable importance on strengthening institutions, professionalizing law enforcement, promoting human rights, and developing public confidence in the justice system.
Today, however, another challenge is emerging: the increasing use of social media as a platform for discussing criminal investigations and national security matters.
Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, YouTube, X and other digital platforms have transformed how Liberians communicate. Information that once required newspapers, radio broadcasts, or television can now reach thousands of people within minutes. Social media has therefore become an important instrument for civic participation, public education, government communication, political debate, and accountability.
However, the same technology can create serious problems when allegations concerning crime or national security are treated as though they have already been investigated and adjudicated.
A person may post an allegation online. Within minutes, others may repeat it. Political supporters may interpret it according to their political loyalties. Opponents may demand arrests. Commentators may declare someone guilty. Before investigators have interviewed witnesses, examined documents, secured physical evidence, conducted forensic analysis, or consulted prosecutors, a public verdict may already have been created online.
This raises an important question: Who should investigate crime and national security matters—the social media community or the legally established law enforcement and security institutions?
The answer should be clear: professional investigations belong to legally authorized institutions operating under the Constitution and applicable laws.
This does not mean politicians should remain silent when government institutions fail. Nor does it mean citizens should surrender their right to criticize government. Liberia’s Constitution protects freedom of expression and recognizes the public’s right to be informed about government and its functionaries.
Rather, the issue is one of institutional boundaries. Citizens may question government. Journalists may investigate and report. Politicians may demand accountability. Civil society may monitor institutions. Courts may determine legal questions. But professional law enforcement investigators must gather and evaluate evidence. And when evidence supports prosecution, the
appropriate legal institutions must determine the next steps.
This distinction is essential to the rule of law.
Understanding Criminal Investigation
Criminal investigation is a structured process designed to establish facts concerning an alleged offense. An investigation does not begin with a conclusion. It begins with a question.
What happened? When did it happen? Where did it happen? Who was involved? What evidence exists? Who witnessed the event? What motive or circumstances may be relevant? Is the allegation credible? What physical, documentary, digital, financial, or testimonial evidence supports or contradicts the allegation?
These questions require trained investigators.
The Liberia National Police Act recognizes investigative responsibilities as part of the police mandate. Among other duties, the police are responsible for preventing and deterring crime, conducting investigations, apprehending offenders, gathering and analyzing information relevant to crime prevention and investigation, and developing systems for evidence and forensic services.
This is important because investigation is not simply the act of asking somebody, “What happened?”
A professional investigation may involve: receiving a complaint; assessing the allegation; identifying investigative leads; securing the crime scene; identifying witnesses; interviewing witnesses; interviewing suspects in accordance with law; collecting documentary evidence; collecting physical evidence; preserving digital evidence; conducting forensic examination;
analyzing financial or communication records where legally authorized; comparing statements;
establishing timelines; identifying inconsistencies; evaluating alternative explanations;
documenting findings; and preparing the case for appropriate legal action.
Social media cannot replace these procedures.
A viral post may be an investigative lead, but it is not necessarily evidence sufficient to establish criminal responsibility.
That distinction must be understood by political leaders and the general public.
Social Media Is Not a Courtroom
Social media has democratized communication, but democratized communication does not mean democratized criminal adjudication.
A person can publish an accusation online without producing admissible evidence. Another person can copy the allegation. A third person can add an interpretation. Eventually, thousands of people may believe the allegation simply because they have seen it repeatedly.
This creates a dangerous phenomenon: the repetition of an allegation can create the appearance of truth without establishing the truth.
In criminal justice, however, allegations must be tested.
Therefore, the public should be careful when using social media to discuss active investigations.
Freedom of Expression and Its Constitutional Importance
An argument for investigative independence must not be transformed into an argument against freedom of expression.
Liberia’s 1986 Constitution recognizes freedom of expression. Article 15 protects the right to hold opinions and includes freedom of speech and the press as well as the public’s right to information concerning government and its functionaries.
This constitutional protection is fundamental.
Liberians have the right to ask: What happened? Why was someone arrested? What is government doing, are security institutions performing properly? Are public officials accountable? Are citizens’ rights being protected?
These are legitimate democratic questions.
The solution, therefore, is not to silence citizens or politicians.
Instead, Liberia needs responsible expression combined with responsible investigation.
Freedom of expression does not automatically transform an allegation into a fact.
Likewise, the right of government to investigate does not give investigators permission to disregard constitutional rights. Democracy requires both. Due Process: The Foundation of Legitimate Investigation. The principle of due process is central to Liberia’s constitutional order.
Article 20 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, security, property, privilege, or other rights except through a process consistent with the Constitution and due process of law. Article 21 also establishes important protections concerning searches and seizures and provides protections for persons suspected or accused of crimes, including the right to be informed of charges and the right to counsel.
These provisions are not obstacles to law enforcement.
They are what make law enforcement legitimate.
A professional security institution should not fear constitutional safeguards. Instead, it should use them as a framework for professional conduct.
The purpose of an investigation is not simply to arrest someone.
The purpose is to determine whether an offense occurred, identify responsible persons where the evidence supports such a conclusion, protect innocent people from wrongful accusation, and present reliable evidence through appropriate legal channels.
Social Media as an Investigative Lead
Although social media should not replace investigation, it can be useful to investigators.
Social media may provide: leads; photographs; videos; witness information; public statements; locations; timelines; communication patterns;
and information concerning potential criminal activity.
Therefore, the correct academic position is not that social media has no investigative value.
Rather: Social media information should be treated as information requiring verification, not automatically as established fact. Professional investigators must authenticate digital information before relying upon it. The Danger of Political Interference
Political interference can take many forms.
It can occur when politicians: demand that a particular person be arrested without an investigation; publicly declare someone guilty before trial; pressure investigators to produce a predetermined result; publicly reveal sensitive investigative information; interfere with witnesses; attempt to influence investigators; use security institutions against political opponents; discourage investigations involving political allies; or turn legitimate investigations into partisan political battles.
Such conduct can damage the credibility of the entire justice system.
The most dangerous form of political interference is outcome-driven investigation.
An investigator should begin with evidence and allow evidence to lead to a conclusion.
Political interference reverses this process.
It begins with a conclusion and demands evidence to support it.
That is not professional investigation.
Political Leaders Must Understand Institutional Continuity
One of the strongest reasons politicians should respect law enforcement institutions is that political power is temporary, while national institutions must continue beyond individual administrations. A politician may serve as: President, Vice President, Senator, Representative, Minister, Director, Superintendent, or other senior official.
But political positions eventually change hands but Security institutions remain.
The same police officer who protects one administration may protect another.
The same investigator who conducts an investigation today may investigate a matter involving a different political administration tomorrow.
The same court system that protects one political leader may later be required to protect an opposition leader.
Therefore, politicians should avoid destroying institutional credibility for short-term political advantage.
A politician who undermines professional law enforcement today may discover tomorrow that the country needs those same institutions to protect the rule of law.
Political leaders should therefore build institutions that they themselves would be comfortable facing when they are no longer in power.
National Security Is a National Institution, Not a Political Possession
The phrase “national security” must be properly understood.
National security does not mean protecting a particular politician, political party, or administration from criticism.
National security means protecting the Republic and its constitutional order.
A professional national security system should protect: national sovereignty; constitutional government; public safety; citizens; critical infrastructure; national borders; economic security; public institutions; sensitive information; and the peaceful functioning of the state.
Therefore, security institutions must not be reduced to political instruments.
At the same time, security institutions must understand that national security powers come with enormous responsibility.
The more powerful the institution, the greater the need for accountability.
The Professional Independence of Investigators
Investigators require professional independence.
This does not mean that investigators should operate outside the law or outside legitimate institutional supervision. It means they should be able to follow evidence without being improperly pressured to reach predetermined conclusions.
Suppose investigators receive an allegation involving a senior government official.
The correct professional approach is not: This person is powerful, so we cannot investigate.
Nor should it be: This person is politically unpopular, so we must investigate.
The correct approach is: There is an allegation. Let us establish the facts.
This is the essence of professional law enforcement.
Evidence Must Speak Louder Than Political Rhetoric
Criminal justice depends on evidence. Evidence may include: testimony; documents; physical objects; forensic evidence; financial records; electronic communications; surveillance materials where lawfully obtained; photographs; videos; digital records; expert analysis; and other legally obtained information. A social-media post may point investigators toward evidence, but investigators must independently establish whether the information is reliable.
For example, a photograph posted online may appear convincing. Yet investigators must determine: When was it taken? Where was it taken? Who took it? Has it been edited? Is the context complete? Who can authenticate it? Does independent evidence support it?
This is why professional investigation matters.
The Problem of Trial by social media: Trial by social media is particularly dangerous because it can punish people before courts determine guilt. Once an accusation becomes viral, reputational damage can occur even if the person is eventually cleared.
This may affect: employment; family relationships; professional reputation; political participation; community standing; mental well-being; and public trust. The presumption of innocence is therefore more than a courtroom principle. It is a social responsibility. A person accused of a crime is not automatically a criminal. An allegation is not a conviction. An arrest is not a conviction. An investigation is not a conviction. An indictment is not a conviction.
Only the appropriate judicial process can determine criminal responsibility.
Responsible Political Communication
Political leaders have an enormous influence on public opinion.
When a senator, representative, minister, presidential adviser, or other prominent public official makes a statement, citizens may interpret that statement as authoritative.
Therefore, political leaders should exercise restraint when commenting on ongoing investigations. Instead of saying: The person is guilty and must be arrested.”
A responsible political statement might be: The allegations are serious and should be investigated by the appropriate authorities. If the evidence establishes criminal responsibility, the law should take its course. That language respects both public concern and due process.
What Politicians Should Do When They Suspect a Crime
Politicians absolutely have a role in fighting crime.
If a public official has credible information concerning criminal activity, the appropriate response is not necessarily to immediately conduct an investigation through social media.
Instead, the official can: report the information to the appropriate authority; provide relevant documents; identify witnesses or sources where appropriate; request that the matter be investigated; ask for lawful accountability; raise concerns through legislative or oversight mechanisms where appropriate; request institutional explanations; and allow professional investigators to determine the facts. This is not weakness, It is institutional maturity.
A Message to Liberian Politicians
Liberian politicians should remember that government is bigger than political parties and political administrations. The security institution you criticize today may protect you tomorrow.
The police officer you disregard today may someday be responsible for your safety.
The investigator whose independence you undermine today may later be required to protect the integrity of an investigation involving your own administration. Therefore, build institutions that are strong enough to serve your opponents, your supporters, your political successors, and ultimately the Liberian people. Do not destroy institutions because they are inconvenient.
Reform them when necessary. Hold them accountable when they fail. Train them when they lack capacity. Discipline them when they violate the law. But do not politicize them.
A Message to Liberia’s Security and Law Enforcement Institutions
The call to let National Security do its job” carries a corresponding responsibility.
National security institutions must earn the confidence they are asking the public and politicians to give them. That confidence must be built through professionalism, integrity, discipline, accountability, transparency, impartiality, confidentiality, competence, respect for human rights, and obedience to the Constitution and laws of Liberia.
The public should never be told to trust security institutions simply because they wear uniforms. Trust must be earned through conduct.
Conclusion
The central argument of this article is straightforward:
Social media is not a substitute for professional criminal investigation, and political pressure should never replace evidence-based law enforcement.
Liberia’s constitutional system recognizes freedom of expression and the public’s right to information. At the same time, it protects privacy, due process, lawful search and seizure, the rights of accused persons, and other fundamental protections.
These principles are not contradictory.
They are complementary.
A democratic society should allow citizens to ask difficult questions while requiring law enforcement institutions to conduct professional investigations.
Political leaders should be able to demand accountability without dictating investigative outcomes.
Journalists should be able to report allegations without declaring suspects guilty.
Security institutions should be able to investigate serious matters without being turned into political weapons.
Courts should ultimately determine criminal responsibility through the legal process.
The Liberia National Police already has statutory responsibilities involving crime prevention, investigation, information gathering and analysis, protection of fundamental rights, and forensic services. These responsibilities require professional space, resources, training, and institutional respect. However, institutional independence must never mean institutional impunity.
The strongest security institution is not one that cannot be questioned. It is one that can be
questioned, audited, investigated, reformed, and held accountable while still being allowed to perform legitimate investigative functions without political manipulation. Likewise, the strongest politician is not one who can command an investigation to produce a particular outcome. The strongest political leader is one who understands that institutions must be stronger than individuals.
Liberia therefore needs a new culture of institutional responsibility. When allegations arise, let the appropriate authorities investigate. When evidence is discovered, let it be properly preserved and analyzed. When suspects are identified, let their constitutional rights be respected. When prosecutors have sufficient evidence, let the appropriate legal process proceed. When courts receive cases, let judges determine them independently. When security institutions fail, let legitimate oversight mechanisms hold them accountable.
And when politicians have concerns, let them use the law not social-media pressure as the principal mechanism for addressing those concerns.
The future of Liberia’s democracy depends not only on who occupies political office, but on whether the country’s institutions can continue functioning professionally when political leadership changes. Today you may be the President. Tomorrow you may be a former President. Today you may be a Senator, Representative, Minister, or senior government official. Tomorrow someone else may occupy that position. But the Republic of Liberia remains.
Therefore, let us build security and law enforcement institutions that belong to the Republic of Liberia—not to a political party, an administration, an individual politician, or a temporary government. Political power is temporary; national institutions must endure. Let National Security do its lawful job. Let law enforcement investigate professionally. Let politicians respect institutional boundaries. Let citizens respect due process. And let the rule of law remain greater than every individual who temporarily holds public office.
About the Author
Apostle Dr. Tarpeh L. U-sayee, Jr. is a highly accomplished Liberian law enforcement professional, criminal justice scholar, police training expert, and ordained Apostolic minister with over two decades of combined experience in security services, higher education, leadership training, and ministry.
He currently serves as an Instructor with the Executive Protection Service (EPS) and the Liberia National Police Training Academy, while lecturing in Criminal Justice, Forensic Science, and Physical Education at several private universities in Liberia. His professional career is distinguished by extensive international exposure, including advanced police and counter-terrorism training in the United States and Nigeria.
Dr. U-sayee holds a Doctor of Ministry (DMin) in Church Growth, a master’s degree in foreign service leadership (International Relations), a Master of Divinity, dual bachelor’s Degrees in Sociology and Criminal Justice, and an Associate Degree in Management. As an Apostle, academic, and security practitioner, he integrates ethical leadership, faith-based values, and practical expertise to advance peacebuilding, institutional development, and the rule of law in Liberia.
References
African Union. (1981). African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Organization of African Unity.
African Union. (2006). African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance. African Union.
Constitution of the Republic of Liberia. (1986). Constitution of the Republic of Liberia. Government of Liberia.
Government of Liberia. (2016). Liberia National Police Act. Republic of Liberia. The Act identifies crime prevention, criminal investigation, information gathering and analysis, protection of fundamental rights, and forensic services among the responsibilities of the Liberia National Police.
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations.
United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. United Nations.
United Nations General Assembly. (1979). Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, Resolution 34/169. United Nations.
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. The Code emphasizes respect for human dignity and human rights, professional responsibility, confidentiality, and appropriate reporting of violations.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (Various years). Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Resources. United Nations.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2011). Handbook on Police Accountability, Oversight and Integrity. United Nations.
International Association of Chiefs of Police. (Various years). Law Enforcement Policy and Professional Standards. IACP.
Bayley, D. H. (2006). Changing the Guard: Developing Democratic Police Abroad. Oxford University Press.
Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-Oriented Policing. McGraw-Hill.
Kelling, G. L., & Moore, M. H. (1988). The evolving strategy of policing. Perspectives on Policing, National Institute of Justice.
Skolnick, J. H. (2011). Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society. Quid Pro Books.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why People Obey the Law. Princeton University Press.
