PHOTO: The Author Peter Quaqua (left) and the Capitol Building, seat of the Liberian Legislature (right)
By Peter Quaqua
Liberia’s celebrated KAK Press Freedom Act is once again under scrutiny following the introduction of a proposed amendment by Representative Nyan G. Flomo of Nimba County. The proposal has reignited national debate about the country’s commitment to protecting freedom of expression. While the bill seeks to address the growing problem of abusive online content, it raises questions about the broader implications for press freedom and public discourse.
As a proponent of the KAK Act, I feel compelled to contribute to this important conversation.
Background of the Kamara A. Kamara Press Freedom Act
The KAK Press Freedom Act of 2019 represents one of Liberia’s most significant legal reforms in the protection of freedom of expression and press freedom. The law repealed several provisions of the Liberian Penal Code that criminalized speech offenses—including criminal libel against the President, sedition, and criminal malevolence—effectively decriminalizing defamation and ending the threat of imprisonment for many forms of speech.
Historically, these provisions had been used to prosecute journalists, suppress dissent, and restrict public criticism of government officials. Their removal marked a decisive shift.
The Act was influenced by continental and international advocacy efforts aimed at abolishing criminal speech offenses in Africa, particularly the Declaration of Table Mountain (DTM) adopted in 2007. The declaration called on African governments to abolish insult laws and criminal defamation, decriminalize press offenses, promote civil remedies in place of criminal sanctions, and strengthen legal protections for independent journalism and media practitioners. Liberia formally endorsed the declaration in 2012.
The philosophy underpinning the KAK Act is therefore clear: disputes arising from speech—especially those involving reputation or criticism of public officials—should be addressed primarily through civil law rather than criminal prosecution.
Overview of the Proposed Amendment
The proposed bill by Rep. Flomo appears to be motivated by legitimate concerns about the rise of online harassment, digital violence against women, and increasingly hostile discourse on social media platforms. However, addressing these challenges by introducing new criminal provisions into the KAK Act raises significant legal and policy concerns.
It is also worth noting that the bill comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s controversial six-month imprisonment of Justin Oldpa Yeazehn, widely known as Prophet Key, for insulting the mother of the Chief Justice on social media. That excessive punishment sparked nationwide debate. Supporters argued that the judiciary must protect its authority and dignity. Critics, however, warned that imprisoning individuals for offensive speech risks undermining the spirit of the KAK Act. The Court’s action admittedly punished an unruly character, but it has also left behind a troubling chilling effect on freedom of expression.
The Contradiction
Instead of working towards strengthening the decriminalization of speech‑related offenses, the bill is requesting the Legislature to effectively reintroduce criminal liability for speech, thereby reversing the reform spirit that underpinned the KAK law, and open the door for further expansion of criminal restrictions on expression.
When broadly defined, criminalizing online insults could be misused to suppress legitimate criticism and expose journalists, activists, and political commentators to legal risk. This concern is particularly significant in the digital space where political speech and public commentary are common.
Misplacement and Alternative Legal Remedies
Without dismissing the concerns that motivated the bill, the proposal appears misplaced within the framework of lawmaking. The KAK Act is fundamentally a press freedom statute designed to remove criminal sanctions for speech. Introducing new criminal offenses into the Act risks creating structural inconsistencies with its original purpose and intent.
If the Legislature wishes to address gender-based online abuse, more appropriate options are available. These could include adopting standalone legislation on digital harms, amending existing digital safety laws, or strengthening civil remedies for online harassment. Better still, why not the cybercrime bill currently before the House of Representatives for concurrence? Such approaches would tackle the problem directly without undermining the integrity of the KAK Act—assuming, of course, that the Act has not already been compromised by the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Liberia.
Implications
If adopted, the amendment could dent Liberia’s standing on global press freedom indices, create legal uncertainty around the boundaries of protected speech, and set a troubling precedent for the re-expansion of criminal penalties for expression.
Given that the KAK Act was celebrated internationally as a landmark democratic reform, weakening its core protections would represent a significant inhibition for Liberia’s commitment to freedom of expression.
Finally, while aligning domestic legal frameworks—particularly Articles 5 and 15 of the Constitution—with international instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Maputo Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa may appear compelling, these instruments generally call on states to prevent discrimination and protect women from violence. They do not necessarily require the criminalization of expression within press freedom laws. In practice, many jurisdictions address gender-based online abuse through specialized digital safety or anti-harassment legislation rather than by amending press freedom statutes.
Conclusion
Let it be said once again that the KAK Act was enacted to abolish criminal penalties for speech. Any legislative effort that reintroduces criminal liability for expression would be counterproductive. Protecting individuals from online abuse is both necessary and legitimate. However, it must not come at the expense of the legal safeguards that protect freedom of expression.