Liberia: WAJA Chief Quaqua Warns New Law Could Recriminalize Free Speech as Senator Twayen Calls for Safeguards Against Abuse

Peter Quaqua cautions that Liberia’s Cybercrime Act risks undermining constitutional free speech protections and press freedom, while Senator Nya D. Twayen defends the law’s intent to combat cyber abuse but urges strict enforcement guidelines to ensure criticism, journalism and legitimate public discourse are not criminalized

MONROVIA– Liberia’s newly enacted Cybercrime Act is drawing increased scrutiny from media advocates, legal observers and policymakers, with concerns centering on whether the law could be used to restrict constitutionally protected speech while addressing legitimate cyber threats.

---

***By Jaheim T. Tumu-jaheim.tumu@frontpageafricaonline.com ***

---

The debate comes as the law enters into force and faces its first public enforcement test following the arrest of a young man, Jerry Nyantee Wrotto accused of cyberbullying Vice President Jeremiah Koung. While supporters argue the legislation is needed to tackle online abuse, fraud and manipulated digital content, critics fear some provisions are broad enough to criminalize lawful expression.

West African Journalists Association (WAJA), president Peter Quaqua, said the issue is not whether Liberia needs cybercrime legislation, but whether the law grants government authorities excessive powers over online speech.

“The question is not whether Liberia needs a law to combat cybercrime. It does,” Quaqua wrote. “The question is what happens when a law designed to protect citizens online also gives the State unrestrained powers over what people can say, publish and share?”

Quaqua argued that Liberia must be careful not to reverse gains achieved under the 2019 Kamara Abdullah Kamara Act, which removed criminal penalties for offenses such as criminal libel against the president, sedition and criminal malevolence. He warned that speech protections should not disappear simply because communication takes place online.

“Liberia should therefore be careful not to repeal speech offences in one law only to recreate substantially similar offences through another simply because the speech takes place online,” he said. “A speech offence does not become less of a speech offence because it is transmitted electronically.”

According to Quaqua, some of the most controversial provisions involve cyberstalking, racist and xenophobic offenses, harmful data messages, searches and interception of electronic communications.

He maintained that the concern is not over punishing genuine criminal conduct, but over the possibility that loosely drafted sections could be applied against journalists, activists or political critics.

“The issue is not whether genuinely harmful conduct should be punished,” he wrote. “The real question is whether some of these provisions are drafted so broadly that legitimate criticism, journalism, political commentary, advocacy, or even an honest mistake, could become a criminal offence.”

Particular attention, he said, should be given to provisions dealing with the dissemination of allegedly harmful messages. Quaqua argued that public debate often includes mistakes, controversial opinions and criticism that may cause reputational harm without constituting criminal behavior.

“People can be wrong without being criminals. They can say something offensive without committing a crime. They can criticize public officials harshly without crossing the line into criminal conduct,” he wrote.

Quaqua further warned that investigative reporting, whistleblowing and satire could potentially fall within the reach of broadly framed legal provisions if appropriate safeguards are absent.

“The broadly worded provision could potentially reach investigative reporting, allegations of wrongdoing, whistleblowing, political commentary, satire and social-media commentary, forms of expression that are central to public debate,” he said.

He also expressed concern about provisions dealing with cyberstalking, arguing that authorities must distinguish between harassment and persistent public criticism of officials.

“A citizen who repeatedly criticizes a public official is not necessarily a cybercriminal. An activist conducting an online campaign is not necessarily a cybercriminal,” Quaqua wrote.

Quaqua questioned whether powers granted for searches and interception of electronic communications could affect privacy rights and press freedom if not subjected to strong judicial oversight.

“Journalists should be able to protect confidential sources. A whistleblower should be able to communicate with a journalist. A lawyer should be able to communicate confidentially with a client,” he said.

At the center of Quaqua’s argument is the view that Liberia’s constitutional protections and international human rights obligations remain fully applicable in the digital age.

“The fact that speech is delivered electronically does not automatically remove its constitutional protection,” he wrote.

Nimba County Senator Nya D. Twayen Jr., meanwhile, offered a more supportive assessment of the legislation while acknowledging concerns about its implementation.

He said the Cybercrime Act addresses offenses such as unauthorized access to computer systems, digital fraud, identity theft and illegal interception of data, matters that existing laws may not adequately address.

“The Cybercrime Act of 2025 is now in force, and the debate has moved from whether Liberia needs it to how it is applied,” Twayen wrote.

Referring to the recent arrest linked to alleged cyberbullying of the vice president, Twayen said both supporters and critics have raised valid concerns and that the law’s legitimacy will ultimately depend on fair enforcement.

“Critics fear enforcement would be used now or in future against journalists, political communicators and opponents. Supporters believe that would curb the use of AI-generated and fake images for harassment and bullying. Both concerns are legitimate, and the law’s credibility now depends on implementation,” he stated.

The senator emphasized that Liberia’s Constitution already provides a framework for balancing free expression and accountability. “Article 15 of the 1986 Constitution already sets the balance: every person has freedom of expression but is ‘fully responsible for the abuse thereof,'” Twayen wrote.

While defending the need for cybercrime enforcement, Twayen cautioned that authorities must not use the legislation to revive offenses that were abolished under the KAK Act.

“The Cybercrime Act must not be used to revive those offences indirectly but must not also impede justice for victims of cybercrimes under such disguise,” he said.

To address concerns, Twayen proposed that the Ministry of Justice adopt administrative procedures establishing clear standards for investigations and prosecutions. He suggested that prosecutors should be required to prove intent and actual harm before filing charges. “Offensive or unpopular opinion alone is not enough,” Twayen wrote.

He also called for additional protections in cases involving the media and commentary on public officials. “Protection of journalists and legitimate criticism should mandate higher level prosecutorial review before any arrest in cases surrounding press work or commentary on public officials,” he proposed.

Twayen further recommended consultation with the Press Union of Liberia, the Liberia National Bar Association, the Independent National Commission on Human Rights and civil society groups before enforcement guidelines are finalized.