Monrovia/Freetown — As Liberia and Sierra Leone continue their fragile recovery from years of civil conflict, a series of high-profile prosecutions and disciplinary actions in both countries is raising alarm among civil society groups and regional observers about a possible rollback of free speech and political dissent.
By Gerald C. Koinyeneh, [email protected]
In Liberia, the recent expulsion of Representative Yekeh Kolubah, the six-month imprisonment of social media influencer Justine Oldpa Yeazeahn, widely known as Prophet Key, and the sentencing of entertainer and political activist Zainab Sheriff to four years and two months in prison in Sierra Leone have intensified criticism over both governments’ commitment to protecting free speech and political dissent.
On April 17, Representative Kolubah of Montserrado County District #10 was expelled by Liberia’s House of Representatives following remarks he made concerning the longstanding border dispute between Liberia and Guinea. Kolubah publicly suggested that available evidence appeared to support Guinea’s territorial claim, comments that sparked fierce backlash from fellow lawmakers and ultimately resulted in his removal.
Earlier, on February 13, Prophet Key was sentenced to six months in prison after Liberia’s Supreme Court found him guilty of criminal contempt over social media remarks deemed insulting to Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, his mother, and the full bench of the Court. The ruling followed a show-cause hearing centered on statements in which Yeazeahn criticized the Chief Justice, used offensive language, and accused the Supreme Court of corruption.
He was ordered to serve 180 days at Monrovia Central Prison. In addition to the prison term, the Court required him to issue a formal written apology to the Supreme Court and Liberian women for five consecutive days and sign a behavior bond committing to refrain from vulgar public attacks.
Critics contend that the punishment against Kolubah was disproportionate and intended to silence an outspoken independent voice. Prophet Key’s sentencing has similarly fueled debate over whether Liberia’s judiciary is legitimately safeguarding its institutional integrity or overstepping into the suppression of personal expression. For many observers, both cases have become flashpoints in growing concerns about restrictions on free speech.
One of the most vocal critics has been the Press Union of Liberia (PUL). In a sharply worded statement issued last week under the theme “No Rescue Without Freedom,” the PUL expressed deep concern over what it described as the gradual erosion of democratic norms—particularly freedom of speech and expression—under the administration of President Joseph Boakai.
“Democracy is not tested in moments of agreement, but in how a society treats dissent,” the union stated. “Today, many Liberians—journalists, students, activists, and ordinary citizens—are increasingly anxious about whether they can speak freely without fear of intimidation, arrest, or reprisal. This growing sense of unease should concern all who believe in the promise of Liberia’s democratic future.”
The PUL further argued that an administration elected on a “Rescue” platform must remain firmly committed to the principles that sustain democracy, including respect for fundamental rights, adherence to the rule of law, and unwavering confidence in judicial independence.
“These are not optional values,” the union stressed. “They are the foundation of legitimate governance.”
The Press Union directly criticized the administration of President Joseph Boakai, noting that a government elected on a “Rescue” agenda must uphold the fundamental principles of democracy, including respect for human rights, the rule of law, and judicial independence.
Key Concerns Raised
The union outlined several developments it believes signal shrinking civic space and weakening adherence to due process. Among them include the controversial removal of House Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, the continued detention of Justin Oldpa Yeazehn for criminal contempt by the Supreme Court of Liberia, the violent suppression of peaceful protests, including demonstrations by students of the University of Liberia on April 14, the expulsion of Representative Yekeh Kolubah by a narrow majority in the House of Representatives, efforts to undermine the Freedom of Information Act through proposed non-disclosure agreements for government employees, legislative moves to amend the Kamara Abdullah Kamara Act of Press Freedom to potentially reintroduce criminal penalties for speech.
According to the PUL, these actions collectively risk reversing hard-won gains in press freedom, including the repeal of laws criminalizing libel and sedition.
The union stressed that freedom of expression is a constitutional right protected under Article 15 of the Liberian Constitution and cautioned against any actions that bypass legal procedures or undermine judicial authority.
“The judiciary must remain the final arbiter of disputes,” the statement noted, warning that disregard for legal processes could weaken public trust in governance.
The PUL also condemned the use of force against peaceful protesters, stating that citizens must be allowed to assemble and express grievances without fear.
Call to Action
The PUL called on the government to uphold freedom of expression in both principle and practice, respect the independence of the judiciary, ensure due process in all actions affecting citizens, end intimidation and violence against peaceful protesters, avoid legislative rollbacks that criminalize speech.
‘Freedom as the Foundation’
The union concluded by underscoring that Liberia’s democratic progress has been built through sacrifice and must be protected. “At a time of economic hardship and uncertainty, silencing voices only deepens frustration,” Kanubah said. “There can be no rescue without freedom.”
The PUL reaffirmed its commitment to defending press freedom and supporting efforts to safeguard Liberia’s democracy.
‘Unjustifiably Excessive’
Across the border in Sierra Leone, a more severe case has intensified concerns about the limits of free expression. Entertainer-turned-politician Zainab Sheriff, a member of the opposition All People’s Congress (APC), was sentenced to four years and two months in prison after being convicted on charges of incitement and using threatening language on April 14, 2026.
The conviction stems from statements she allegedly made during a political rally in Freetown, where prosecutors say she described election rigging as treason and suggested that those responsible should be killed. She also reportedly referred to the president as a “rigger.” The court, relying on video and transcript evidence, ruled that her remarks violated public order laws and posed a threat to national stability.
Sheriff, who pleaded not guilty throughout the proceedings, was denied bail and remained in detention until sentencing. Her case drew widespread attention, including reports that a large team of lawyers rallied in her defense at various stages of the trial. While government supporters have defended the verdict as necessary to deter inflammatory rhetoric, critics say it reflects a pattern of selective justice aimed at opposition figures.
The Lawyers’ Society of Sierra Leone strongly condemned the sentence handed down to Zainab Sheriff, describing both the judgment and punishment as unjustifiably excessive and a violation of fundamental rights.
In a formal statement, the Society expressed “profound concern” over Sheriff’s conviction and four-year, two-month sentence delivered by Magistrate Brima Jah in the case of The Inspector General of Police v. Zainab Sheriff.
“We firmly believe that the comments made by Ms. Sheriff, in the exercise of her right to expression and opinion, should not have resulted in criminal prosecution,” the statement said, noting that the Political Parties Regulation Commission (PPRC) had already imposed a fine, which was paid by the opposition party.
The organization also criticized the court’s refusal to grant Sheriff bail throughout the summary trial, arguing that this contradicted both the presumption of innocence and protections outlined under Sierra Leone’s Criminal Procedure Act of 2024.
According to the Lawyers’ Society, freedom of expression—including unpopular or controversial opinions—is an essential pillar of democracy.
“The sentence imposed on Ms. Sheriff appears unnecessarily severe and risks discouraging citizens from voicing diverse perspectives,” the Society noted, warning that such punitive measures may signal limited tolerance for free and open political dialogue.
In light of these concerns, the group urged Sierra Leone’s Chief Justice to exercise his summary review powers under Cap 17 of the Laws of Sierra Leone to review the case, overturn the conviction, and discharge Sheriff, consistent with previous interventions in cases involving disproportionate sentencing.
The developments in both countries have triggered public outcry and renewed scrutiny from human rights advocates, who warn that restricting dissent could undermine democratic gains achieved since the end of their respective civil wars.
“These are not isolated incidents,” said a regional political analyst based in West Africa. “They point to a broader tension between maintaining public order and respecting fundamental freedoms, and are signs of creeping dictorship. The danger is that governments, in trying to prevent instability, may adopt measures that stifle legitimate criticism.”
Both Liberia and Sierra Leone experienced devastating civil wars fueled in part by governance failures, political exclusion, and suppression of dissent. Observers caution that while today’s circumstances are far removed from those periods of conflict, the erosion of civic space—if left unchecked—could weaken public trust in democratic institutions.
For many citizens, the issue is not whether governments should act against harmful or inflammatory speech, but how far such actions should go. Civil society organizations in both countries are calling for clearer legal standards, proportional penalties, and greater safeguards to ensure that laws meant to preserve order are not used to silence opposition.
As the debate intensifies, the actions of both governments are likely to remain under close watch—not only domestically, but across a region where democratic resilience continues to be tested.
