The arrest Liberian hip hop artist Karwoudou Cole -- known to the world as Bucky Raw -- has ignited a debate that extends far beyond the confines of the courtroom. What began as an alleged drug-related offense has become a national reflection on justice, fairness, and the integrity of institutions tasked with upholding the law. In the glare of public attention, the case exposes not only procedural questions about the application of the law but also deeper anxieties about selective justice, political influence, and the role of spectacle in law enforcement. At the center of this storm stands the Liberia Drug Enforcement Agency (LDEA), whose actions are being closely scrutinized for consistency, transparency, and impartiality.
LIBSERIANS ARE familiar with headlines about high-profile arrests, yet the case of Bucky Raw has struck a particularly sensitive chord. It is not only the prominence of the artist that matters, but the manner in which his arrest and detention were conducted and publicized. When a judge at the Paynesville Magistrate Court ordered Bucky Raw remanded to the Monrovia Central Prison, citing concerns over due process, bail assurances, and maintaining court order, many hoped that the legal system was simply following its procedural course. Yet, rather than quelling public debate, the decision intensified scrutiny, raising questions about the motivations and discretion of the LDEA, as well as the consistency of the justice system itself.
THE SPEED and intensity with which images, videos, and official statements about the arrest circulated on social media compounded public dissatisfaction. The perception that law enforcement's actions were driven more by optics than by adherence to legal standards created a sense that the presumption of innocence was being undermined. In a country where public trust in institutions is fragile, parading suspects before cameras and social media feeds is not just unnecessary -- it risks eroding confidence in the rule of law itself. Law enforcement's task is to investigate and uphold justice, not to produce spectacles for public consumption. When visibility eclipses procedure, the credibility of the institution suffers.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
LEGALLY, THE CASE falls under Liberia's Controlled Drugs and Substances Act of 2023. The law criminalizes possession and trafficking of controlled substances, but it also differentiates offenses based on quantity, intent, and bail eligibility. While legal experts have emphasized that simple possession of small quantities may be bailable, and that personal or medical use requires proper authorization, these technical distinctions appear to have been overshadowed by public anger at the LDEA's methods. The legal nuances--such as the legitimacy of the search warrant or whether bail could have been granted--remain critical, yet the national conversation has shifted toward questions of fairness, discretion, and proportionality.
PUBLIC SCRUTINY intensified further when the LDEA removed a Facebook post announcing the arrest of two British nationals allegedly caught with large quantities of drugs valued in the millions of Liberian dollars. The abrupt deletion raised obvious questions: why was a significant seizure quietly withdrawn from public view, while Bucky Raw's case--over a reportedly minor amount--was broadcast aggressively? Even if unintentional, the perception of selective justice has been cemented, feeding suspicion that visibility, celebrity status, and public profile influence enforcement practices. In the court of public opinion, perception often matters as much as legal facts.
VOICES FROM CIVIL society, politics, and culture have entered the debate with increasing urgency. Social worker Samukai V. Konneh warned of "tele justice," arguing that broadcasting suspects before courts have ruled constitutes punishment by spectacle rather than proper investigation. According to Konneh, these practices may satisfy temporary public curiosity but ultimately undermine the principles of dignity, due process, and fairness. Justice should never be a performance for public consumption; it is a solemn duty that relies on measured, impartial, and consistent application.
POLITICAL CONTEXT further complicates the discourse. Former lawmaker Acarous Gray suggested that Bucky Raw's visible political affiliations may have influenced the intensity of the prosecution. While the legal merits of this claim are debatable, the assertion itself highlights a perception that political history can shape encounters with justice--a perception that corrodes confidence in institutional neutrality. Current lawmaker Bernard Benson, popularly known as DJ Blue, echoed similar frustrations, noting that large-scale drug activities in his district have attracted little public enforcement, while high-profile arrests like Bucky Raw's dominate headlines. The inconsistent visibility of law enforcement actions fosters doubts about criteria, priorities, and fairness.
PERHAPS THE MOST instructive perspective comes from Hassan Fadiga, former Deputy Director for Operations of the LDEA. Drawing on years of insider experience, Fadiga emphasized discretion, consistency, and adherence to legal provisions as essential for effective enforcement. He pointed out that simple possession offenses were historically handled quietly, with bailable suspects released according to law without public exposure. The current approach--combining aggressive publicity with selective prosecution--represents a departure from established norms. Fadiga's insights underscore a critical principle that enforcement must be predictable, impartial, and grounded in law rather than spectacle or public sentiment.
THROUGHOUT THIS ordeal, Bucky Raw has maintained a measured stance. By asserting his innocence, urging calm, and emphasizing respect for due process, he has reinforced the very principles the justice system seeks to uphold. His supporters within the music community--from Liberia to the diaspora--have mobilized not just in defense of a celebrity, but in support of fairness, transparency, and due process. Their solidarity highlights the broader stakes: this case is not only about one artist, but about the legitimacy of enforcement and the public's belief in the fairness of the law.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
THE IMPLICATION of this case extend far beyond Bucky Raw himself. Liberia's fight against drugs is necessary and urgent, but it will falter if it is perceived as selective, politicized, or performative. Law enforcement agencies must strike a careful balance: they must act decisively against offenders, yet uphold principles of fairness, restraint, and transparency. They must communicate clearly, enforce consistently, and respect the rights of all citizens--regardless of status, political affiliation, or public profile.
ULTIMATELY, the verdict in Bucky Raw's case is for the courts to decide. But the larger judgment--rendered daily by Liberians through conversation, social media, and civic discourse--is about trust. Institutions cannot hope to command respect when enforcement appears uneven or publicity-driven. Rebuilding confidence will require introspection, reform, and a recommitment to the foundational principle that justice must not only be done, but must be visibly impartial, consistent, and respectful of the rights of every Liberian.
IN THIS MOMENT, Liberia confronts a test far greater than one artist's fate. It confronts the question of whether its institutions can enforce the law with integrity, resist the allure of spectacle, and earn the trust of the very citizens they serve. The answer will shape not only the trajectory of Bucky Raw's case, but the credibility of justice itself in Liberia.
