Forget about Benjamin Yeaten, Jenkins Scott, etc. Gregory Coleman is the new evil confronting our democracy since the end of civil war and will go down in history as the worst police officer.
At this moment, there is something deeply troubling about a democracy in which the police begin to look more powerful than the law, more powerful than elected officials, and—most dangerously—more powerful than the citizen’s right to criticize those who exercise public power.
That is why the controversy surrounding Liberia’s Inspector General of Police, Col. Gregory Coleman, and the detention of a young man accused of cyberbullying Vice President Jeremiah Kpan Koung deserves far more than a passing news cycle.
It raises a fundamental question about the direction of Liberia’s democracy: Are the powers of the state being used to protect citizens, or are they increasingly being used to police criticism of those in power?
Liberia does need laws capable of confronting genuine cybercrime. The Cybercrime Act of 2025 was enacted to address offenses involving digital systems and electronic communications. But a cybercrime law must not become a convenient instrument for transforming political ridicule into a criminal offense.
A Cartoon Is Not Automatically Cyberbullying. Political satire has existed for centuries because those in public office are powerful—and because citizens need peaceful ways to challenge, mock, criticize and scrutinize that power.
A cartoon exaggerates. A caricature distorts. Satire makes an argument through irony, ridicule and humor. Political memes can similarly use parody to comment on public events.
None of those characteristics, standing alone, establishes cyberbullying.
Cyberbullying and political satire are conceptually different. Cyberbullying generally involves conduct such as targeted harassment, intimidation, threats or other prohibited behavior. Satire, by contrast, is a form of expression whose purpose can be to comment on public figures, public institutions and matters of public concern.
The distinction is especially important when the subject is a politician. Here, Wrotto is accused of cyberbullying Vice President Jeremiah Koung after allegedly sharing a manipulated image or caricature connected to reports of the vice president’s treatment at an airport in Brussels.
A Vice President, president, minister or police chief is not an ordinary private citizen when exercising public authority. Public officials inevitably face criticism, ridicule and scrutiny. A democracy cannot function if embarrassment becomes evidence of criminality.
The relevant question therefore should not simply be: Did the cartoon offend the Vice President? It should be: What exactly did the creator publish, what does the applicable law prohibit, and can the state establish every required element of a criminal offense?
That is a question for law, evidence and ultimately the courts—not for personal indignation.
When a police chief appears able to arrest a citizen, move him across the country, keep him in custody, and disregard calls for his release without transparent judicial proceedings, the public naturally begins to ask whether the officer has become more powerful than the law. That is not a small concern. It is a warning sign.
Journalists, cartoonists, bloggers, and citizens cannot work freely if they believe that criticism of powerful officials may result in arrest. The fear produced by one high-profile detention can silence hundreds of others. People begin to delete posts, avoid political commentary, and abandon investigative reporting—not because the law clearly prohibits their speech, but because the police response is unpredictable.
That is the beginning of an authoritarian culture.
President Joseph Boakai should call his police director to order. His unguarded and uncontrollable conduct is defacing our constitutional democracy.
The Oracle News Daily demands an end to police abuse. We demand transparency in Wratto’s case and the administration should ensure his human rights are respected and protected.
