Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Since the Supreme Court of Liberia’s incarceration of social media commentator Justin Oldman Yeazehn, popularly known as Prophet Key, public debate has intensified, with claims and counterclaims over whether the Court’s action amounts to the suppression of free speech or the enforcement of the rule of law.

Last week, the full bench of the Supreme Court cited Prophet Key to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for derogatory comments directed at the Chief Justice and the judiciary. The Court pointed to his repeated use of invectives, vulgar language, and what it described as outright abuse.

In its judgment, the Court maintained that his conduct in spewing insults, indecent language, and profanities constituted an abuse of the constitutional right to freedom of expression.

The decision has divided public opinion. While some Liberians view the action as policing speech and suppressing dissent, legal scholars argue that freedom of expression, though fundamental, is not absolute.

The Legal Framework

Globally, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted in 1966, recognises the right to hold opinions without interference as absolute. However, the freedom to express those opinions may be subject to certain restrictions, particularly where it affects the rights and reputations of others or undermines public order.

In Liberia, Article 15(a) of the 1986 Constitution guarantees every person the right to freedom of expression, but with a caveat: the individual shall be fully responsible for any abuse thereof.

It is within this constitutional framework that the Supreme Court, on February 13, 2026, sentenced Prophet Key to six months’ imprisonment for criminal contempt.

The case arose from his use of vulgar and degrading obscenities targeting citizens and the mother of the Chief Justice, which the Court deemed an attack on the dignity and authority of the judiciary.

Critics Raise Concerns

Some scholars and activists have argued that the Court’s decision goes beyond disciplining abuse and infringes on fundamental rights.

Activist Martin Kollie, in a public commentary, questioned whether the Court, being the subject of the alleged contempt, should have recused itself in keeping with the legal maxim Nemo Judex in Causa Sua — meaning no one should be a judge in his own cause.

The argument, critics say, is not simply about speech but about whether justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.

Former Education Minister George Warner offered a different critique. While not defending vulgarity, he described Prophet Key’s apology before the Court as a retreat — not only from his language but from the substance of his claims.

Drawing biblical analogies, Warner argued that prophetic speech is often disruptive and unconventional. He referenced the prophet Isaiah’s symbolic act in Isaiah 20 and the account of Jesus overturning tables in the Temple in Matthew 21:12–13, suggesting that prophetic disruption historically carried moral force.

However, Warner contended that if Prophet Key sought to claim prophetic ground, the courtroom was the place to elevate the argument in disciplined language — not abandon it. By apologising without defending the substance of his grievance, he argued, Prophet Key forfeited credibility.

When does speech cross the line?

International human rights experts often reference the Rabat Plan of Action as a guide in distinguishing legitimate expression from incitement. The threshold test considers several factors: the social and political context; the status and influence of the speaker; intent to incite violence or hostility; the content and form of the speech; the extent of dissemination; and the likelihood and imminence of harm.

Supporters of the Court’s ruling argue that the issue was not mere criticism of a judicial decision, but a deliberate use of degrading obscenities aimed at diminishing the institutional integrity of the judiciary. 

An assistant professor of law, Cllr. Kanio Gbala at the Louis Arthur Grime of Law at the University of Liberia noted that under settled jurisprudence, a judge presiding in an official capacity is the Court itself. 

“The Court speaks through its judges. An attack upon the Chief Justice as head of the judiciary is an institutional attack upon the Supreme Court,” he said.

Human rights lawyer Cllr. Tiawan Gongloe also backed the ruling, anchoring his position in Section 17.3 of the Liberian Penal Code, which addresses criminal malevolence and conduct that undermines public order and the administration of justice.

“As defender of constitutional freedoms, my views are strictly guided by the rule of law,” Gongloe said, adding that respect for the judiciary is fundamental to constitutional democracy and national stability.

An assistant professor of law at the University of Liberia argued that when a court cannot protect its credibility, it cannot protect anyone’s rights.

Public trust and the bigger question

Yet, public confidence in the justice system remains fragile. According to Afrobarometer 2024 data, 63 per cent of Liberians believe people risk retaliation if they speak up about corruption, while only 38 per cent trust the courts “somewhat” or “a lot.”

The tension between liberty and responsibility is not new. In his opinion, in ” On The Rule of the Road, A.G. Gardiner argued that the enjoyment of liberty must not negatively affect others. Liberty, he wrote, is not merely a personal affair but part of a social contract.

In unpacking the Prophet Key case, Liberia is once again confronted with a delicate balancing act: safeguarding freedom of speech while preserving the authority and dignity of its courts.

For lawyers, a decision tainted by bias is a nullity — coram non judice. But for a democracy, the broader question remains whether enforcing contempt strengthens the rule of law or deepens public scepticism.

As the debate continues, one principle stands firm in constitutional democracies: freedom of expression is guaranteed — but its abuse carries consequences.