Monrovia — Martin K. N. Kollie, a Liberian activist currently living in exile, has criticized last week's sentencing of popular podcaster Justine Oldpa Yeazeahn, popularly known as Prophet Key, describing the ruling as a violation of due process and an act driven more by revenge than justice.
Kollie made it clear that he does not support vulgar or offensive speech in Liberian society. He described the style of expression often associated with Prophet Key as un African, un Liberian, uncultured, and unacceptable. According to him, such language should be condemned without hesitation.
However, he stressed that condemning speech must not replace adherence to the rule of law.
Kollie argued that the decision of the Supreme Court of Liberia to sentence Prophet Key to six months imprisonment for criminal contempt was inconsistent with established legal standards.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
He maintained that the handling of the case disregarded key principles of procedural fairness and natural justice that are fundamental to Liberia legal system.
Central to his argument is the legal doctrine known as Nemo Judex in Causa Sua, a principle that states that no one should act as judge in a matter where they have personal interest.
Kollie questioned why Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay presided over proceedings in which he was allegedly directly involved as the complainant. He contended that this created a conflict of interest that undermined the integrity of the judicial process.
According to Kollie, allowing the Chief Justice to preside over such a matter amounted to a situation where one individual effectively served as complainant and adjudicator. He said this eroded public confidence in the impartiality of the court and contradicted the foundations of natural justice.
Kollie further referenced Judicial Canon 28 and Section 2.7 of the Judiciary Law of 1972, which require judges to abstain from cases in which they have personal interest or prior involvement. He argued that these provisions were overlooked in the Prophet Key case, raising serious concerns about compliance with judicial ethics.
The activist also cited the Kamara Abdullah Kamara Act of 2000, legislation that repealed criminal provisions related to speech offenses in Liberia. He noted that the law effectively decriminalized certain forms of speech, including insults, and shifted such matters from criminal to civil jurisdiction. In his view, charging Prophet Key with criminal contempt contradicted the spirit and intent of that reform.
In addition, Kollie pointed out that Liberia is a signatory to the Declaration of Table Mountain of June 3, 2027, which calls on African nations to abolish criminal defamation and insult laws. He suggested that the court decision did not reflect Liberia international commitments to protecting freedom of expression.
Addressing the legal definition of criminal contempt, Kollie cited Section 12.5 of the Judiciary Law, which outlines specific actions that may constitute contempt of court.
These include disorderly conduct that disrupts proceedings, breach of peace within the court, resistance to a lawful court order, refusal to be sworn as a witness, and publication of false reports concerning court proceedings. He argued that Prophet Key conduct did not fall within these defined categories.
Kollie also challenged the length of the sentence. He referenced Section 12.6 of the Judiciary Law, which provides that punishment for criminal contempt before the Supreme Court shall not exceed thirty days imprisonment or a fine of three hundred dollars. He asserted that imposing a six month sentence exceeded the maximum limit prescribed by law and amounted to excessive judicial power.
Rejecting possible reliance on judicial discretion, Kollie maintained that discretion must operate within the limits clearly established by statute. He argued that extending punishment beyond the statutory maximum cannot be justified as discretionary authority. In his view, such action risks setting a troubling precedent that could affect other citizens who express criticism against public officials or institutions.
Kollie further referred to the legal precedent In Re Scott and Roberts reported in Thirty Two Liberia Law Reports, which states that contemptuous speech must pose a clear and extremely serious danger to the administration of justice before it can be punished. He maintained that the statements attributed to Prophet Key did not meet this threshold and therefore should not have attracted criminal sanctions.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Citing Article 15 of the 1986, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, Kollie warned that failure to uphold due process and constitutional protections could damage Liberia standing in the international community. He expressed concern that the case could draw scrutiny from human rights organizations monitoring respect for civil liberties.
Despite his strong criticism of the ruling, Kollie reiterated that his defense of due process should not be interpreted as endorsement of vulgar speech. He emphasized that civility and responsible communication are essential to national development. However, he insisted that the protection of constitutional rights must apply equally to all citizens, regardless of personal views about their character or manner of expression.
Kollie called for equal application of justice across all sectors of society. He urged the judiciary to demonstrate similar urgency and firmness in addressing cases involving corruption, sexual violence, abuse of power, and other serious offenses.
