Prominent Human Rights lawyer and academic Cllr. Taiwan Saye Gongloe has called for restraint and constitutional responsibility in public discourse following the Supreme Court of Liberia’s decision to sentence Prophet Key to six months’ imprisonment for contempt of court.
In a public education commentary titled “Contempt of Court, Freedom of Speech, and the Building of a Vibrant Democracy in Liberia,” Gongloe said his intention was not to defend any individual or institution, but to clarify the legal principles governing contempt in order to foster informed democratic engagement.
“Democracy thrives on disagreement. It does not thrive on destruction,” Gongloe wrote.
Free Speech and Constitutional Limits
Gongloe, who lectures in Constitutional Law, Human Rights Law, Criminal Law and Law and Politics at Liberian law schools, highlighted his longstanding advocacy for press freedom. He noted that he has previously defended journalists and political activists on a pro bono basis and supported reforms that repealed sedition and criminal libel laws.
“I have consistently stood on the side of free speech,” he stated. “But I do not stand for recklessness and indecency, because reckless speech can undermine democracy itself.”
Referencing Article 15 of Liberia’s Constitution, Gongloe emphasized that while freedom of speech and of the press are guaranteed, the Constitution also holds individuals accountable for abuses of that freedom.
“Freedom in a constitutional democracy is never without responsibility,” he wrote.
Understanding Contempt of Court
In his analysis, Gongloe explained that contempt of court generally encompasses conduct that brings the authority of the judiciary into disrepute, interferes with legal proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice.
“Contempt is not about protecting personal pride. It is about protecting the administration of justice,” he noted. “If public confidence collapses, the rule of law collapses.”
He cited past rulings of the Supreme Court, including In re Scott & Roberts (1984) and In re Joseph K. Jallah (1987), where individuals were sanctioned for statements that the Court determined undermined judicial integrity through sweeping allegations of corruption and political bias.
According to Gongloe, the Court has consistently distinguished between legitimate criticism of legal reasoning and accusations that attack the integrity of judges without evidence.
“A citizen may say the Court misinterpreted the Constitution or that a decision was wrong,” he wrote. “But what crosses the line is speech that accuses judges of corruption without proof or seeks to delegitimize the Court.”
Judicial Independence and Inherent Powers
Addressing concerns about why the Supreme Court both initiates and adjudicates contempt proceedings, Gongloe pointed to the common law tradition under which contempt powers are inherent to the judiciary.
“The court whose authority is challenged must have the authority to vindicate that authority,” he argued, noting that the Supreme Court has previously invalidated legislative attempts to curtail its contempt powers.
A Call for Democratic Discipline
While acknowledging that diverse reactions to the Prophet Key ruling reflect a healthy democracy, Gongloe urged citizens and public figures alike to exercise discipline in public commentary.
“Democracy is not sustained by noise, but by maturity; not by provocation, but by principle,” he wrote.
He concluded by stressing that democratic stability depends on strong institutions and responsible civic engagement.
“Freedom and order are not enemies. They are partners in the architecture of constitutional democracy,” Gongloe said. “If Liberia is to continue building a vibrant democratic society, we must elevate our discourse, deepen our understanding of the law, and anchor our disagreements in respect for the institutions that protect our liberties.”
His commentary adds a legal and constitutional perspective to the ongoing national debate over the balance between free expression and judicial authority in Liberia.
