By: Windor Dorko Tarplah, Esq.
I have keenly listened during the last week to public discourse surrounding contempt proceedings against one Justin Oldpa Yeazehn, aka Prophet Key. Initially, even I struggled to understand the fine lines of the proceedings; was it that he had obstructed the workings of the Court, did he malign the character of Justices or bring into question the integrity of the Court? Some said, he had ‘cussed the Chief Justice and the Chief Justice’s ma’-a really amoral thing indeed.
Thankfully, I did not have to wait much longer-for the Most Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia itself would soon make murky things clear. It turns out, from the Court’s Judgment of 13 February 2026, titled: “In Re: Contempt Proceedings against Justin Oldpa Yeazehn” that Oldpa Prophet Key, the contemnor, had “over the years engaged in invectives, vulgar languages, profanities and outright abuse against prominent Liberians, especially women, and now[,] the mother of the sitting Chief Justice…” Having been duly given his day in court, the Court adjudged him guilty of criminal contempt and imposed a “definite and certain imprisonment term of six (6) months.” The Court required that before he is released, he publishes an apology to all Liberians, especially Liberian women.
These are indeed interesting facts that when juxtaposed with law, present two (2) puzzling questions that I can only ask and they are: (1) Does contempt of court extend to the protection of women’s rights in Liberia? (2) How critical is the doctrine of standing in this regard? I am only asking questions and admittedly, I may not have the answers. I ask dear reader, that you be the better judge.
There are many arguable propositions in law and legal constructs. These arguments may range from the mundane, for example, does a set of facts present a prima facie case of murder, is it manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.; and then, the argument may extend to more complicated constitutional interpretative constructs; for example, are temporary special measures towards equity for women constitutional? Whichever way the court rules in those cases might largely depend on the facts, the law, authoritative texts, the persuasion of lawyers, and in some cases, the judge’s own philosophical leanings. Contempt as a useful tool of court, provided for in Article 74 of the Constitution of Liberia is arguably less contested. For it is the court’s authority of contempt that makes judicial powers binding and not merely advisory. Yet, contempt is one of the judiciary’s most potent and controversial powers—lying at the intersection of authority and liberty. Wielded in the hands of the courts of Liberia, it has served as a shield of court but can also be a sword as many in the past have come to understand.
Over the last decades, the Court has brought several contempt proceedings against mainly Liberians and found them guilty or liable. Among these are the seminal In re Contempt Proceedings against Sieh LRSC 10 (21 January 2011) holding that where there has been a glaring demonstration of reckless disregard for the truth with malicious intent to malign the court… appropriate sanction may be properly imposed by a tribunal of justice. In that case, the managing director of FrontPage Africa had been charged with contempt of court for the paper’s publication of a reader’s letter accusing an associate justice of the Supreme Court of “biasness, discrimination, and prejudice.” Then, there’s the Contempt Proceedings against Hon. Tah et al. LRSC 2 (10 January 2014) which was principally against the same Rodney Sieh and the then Minister of Justice, Tah. Sieh, being under incarceration as a result of his failure to respect a mandate of the
Civil Law Court ordering him to identify any property to satisfy the court’s judgment in a defamation suit brought against him by then Agriculture Minister, Chris Toe and the Ministry of Justice having granted the said Sieh compassionate leave outside the court’s knowledge.
In addition to the above mentioned cases, there is a long line of cases: In re Contempt proceedings against Hon. Supuwood 37 LLR 858 (1995); In re Contempt Proceedings against Kamara LRSC 21; In re Contempt proceedings of Counsellor Macfarland 37 LLR 43 (1992); In re Contempt Proceedings Ed.-in-Chief Daily News 37 LLR 815 (1995); In re Contempt against Flomo 40 LLR 575 (2001); In re Contempt, Gardiner et al 40 LLR 170 (2000); In re Scott and Roberts 32 LLR 313 (1984); In Re: Contempt Proceedings Against Counsellor Frank Musah Dean, (2023, Unpublished). In all these cases, there is a direct link between the court and the charges of contempt. Contemnors had either obstructed the mandate of the court; shown some level of allege disrespect to it, or published articles that the court found to be contemptuous. In fact, in the Macfarland case at syllable 2, the Court said, “Any act or conduct is contempt of the Supreme Court which obstructs or is calculated to embarrass or hinder the Court in the administration of justice or constitutes an offense against the authority and dignity of the Court.” In the Macfarland’s case, Counsellor Flaawgaa R. MacFarland, had written letters to Justices James G. Bull, Victor Hne, and Boimah K. Morris requesting them to recuse themselves from sitting on the information which he had filed before the full bench. According to the court, from the contents of his letters, his conduct, and arguments, Macfarland’s “intention for writing the letters was mainly to have the bill of information held in abeyance, never to be heard”-thus obstructing justice.
The Justin Oldman Yeazehn aka Prophet Keys case is an apparent departure from this longstanding court-contempt causal model. In this case, there is seemingly little or no direct link between the contemnor’s “invectives, vulgar languages, profanities and outright abuse” against Liberians and especially women to any observable obstruction of court, a direct attempt to embarrass it, or hinder the court’s administration of justice. The dicta shows the Court coming in defense of public morality, African cultural and traditional norms-all good ascriptions- but arguendo, should a personal deficit of personality in any of those ascriptions that is not tangential to the courts lead a charge of contempt of court?
This question is of foremost importance when considered in light of a litigant’s capacity to come before the court. Article 26 of the Constitution of Liberia provides for the right to sue among other things. The Most Revered Supreme Court of Liberia interpreting Article 26 has said that right to sue is not a blanket right. Standing is a quintessential element to bringing a suit. That is, for a litigant to present a case before the court and for that case to be considered for hearing, under contestation, the litigant must show that she has a legally protectable and tangible interest at stake in the litigation Morgan v. Barclay et al. 42 LLR 259 (2004). The litigant must show how she is adversely affected and that a mere ‘interest’ in a problem, no matter how qualified the organization is in evaluating the problem, is not sufficient by itself to render an organization adversely affected or aggrieved for the purpose of giving it standing to obtain judicial review. Center for Law & Human Rights Education et al. v. Monrovia City Corporation et al. 39 LLR 32 (1998). Instructive also is the case Citizens Solidarity Council v RL LRSC 20 (27 June 2016) in which the Court said, “courts of justice are only required to decide issues squarely raised by proper parties before them; a party without standing or capacity to sue cannot enjoy the benefit of a court decision.”
The critical question we are then left to answer is, does the contempt powers of court extend to invoking the rights of parties/groups outside the province of the Supreme Court? It would seem the one retort we have is, it is the duty and province of Court to say what the law is. Catholic & Peace Commission et al v RL. LRSC 18 (18 August 2006). So maybe, just maybe the latitude of contempt of court has been extended. You be the better judge.
Featured image: Women History Online