CASES ADJUDGED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA AT THE MARCH TERM, 1975 In re ALBERT PORTE, et al., Respondents. CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued January 16, 1975. Decided January 24, 1975. 1. The right of free speech and publication guaranteed by the Constitution is not an absolute right in all circumstances. 2. Though the public has a right to know of all judicial proceedings, it does not include the right to attempt by wanton defamation to prejudice the rights of litigants in a pending action, degrade the tribunal, or impede the due administration of justice. An action for libel had been instituted against Albert Porte, one of the respondents in this contempt proceeding. In November, 1974, while the action was pending, certain comments relative to the case were printed and distributed by respondents. Upon a bill of information filed by the plaintiff in the action, the matter came before the Circuit Court. The judge found respondents in contempt, but purged them on condition they not repeat such conduct. In January, 1975, while the case was in progress, the respondents repeated the act for which they had first been charged with contempt. They were again tried for contempt and found guilty. An appeal was taken from the judgment. 3 4 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS The Supreme Court found grounds for the finding of contempt and, therefore, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The Court in its opinion expounded on the right of free speech and further pointed out that the constitutional guaranty must be coupled with a sober sense of responsibility by him who exercises such right. J. Dossen C. Abayami Cassell for respondents. Richards and Toye C. Barnard amici curiae. MR. JUSTICE AZANGO delivered the opinion of the Court. These contempt proceedings before us have arisen from the facts which are summarized below. On October 31, 1974, Stephen Allen Tolbert of the City of Bentol, Montserrado County, instituted an action of damages for libel against Albert Porte, of Crozierville, alleging publication of certain inflammatory and libelous remarks alleged to have been written of and concerning the plaintiff. Consequent upon this complaint a writ of summons was accordingly issued out of the Civil Law Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, against the defendant to appear and answer the complaint. In obedience thereto he appeared and filed an answer, attaching thereto documentary exhibits. Thereafter there appeared in November, 1974, an issue of a pamphlet entitled “Revelation Extraordinary,” an article carrying the same exhibits proferted by defendant in the case brought against him. On December 12, 1974, plaintiff filed a bill of information with the aforesaid Civil Law Court, for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, alleging that as a result of such publication, a fair trial could not be had in the pending action, the minds of judge and jurors having been swayed. LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 5 Respondent Albert Porte and the others named in the contempt proceedings appeared before the court below. They were given the legal right of representation. Hearing was had before Presiding Judge Alfred B. Flomo, who after due consideration of the issues involved, ruled that he would suspend punishment for respondents but ordered cessation of further publication or public display of matters connected with the pending action. To which judgment in the contempt proceedings and the court’s order, the respondents excepted and prayed for an appeal to the Supreme Court at the March 1975 Term. Despite the restraining order issued by the court below, Neville A. Best published in the January 1975 issue of “The Revelation” an article entitled : “Speaking Out . . . Porte to Pay $25o,000.00,” and the origin of the suit, mockingly concluding it as indicated by the article’s title. He said in his article : “We feel that the height of such disregard and lack of foresight is reached when dangerous precedents are flagrantly set in the Judicial system of all places, where precedence, the history of issues, rulings, verdicts, etc., have a binding influence and serve as the basis for future legal interpretations, determinations and the overall realization of excellence in our entire legal system, in time yet to come. “We cannot help but wonder at. the intelligence of such unpatriotic men who become so absorbed in the personal interests and desires of individuals–trivial when compared to the welfare of the State–that they gamble away and sacrifice the future of the whole legal system of this nation for those selfish purposes. “Hence, we feel the need to express our deep resentment for the mockery which the ‘pursuit of Justice in Liberia’ has been reduced to, in the name of the Law. The pain we feel is worsened by the irony wherein those unscrupulous individuals who are responsible for contributing to the erosion of our Judi- 6 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS ciary, are protected in their acts by the very Law which they throw beneath their feet and step upon with impunity.” Additionally, having written as he did, and still ignoring the issues in the legal suit Best continued his article : “In reviewing the case which officially ended Tuesday, December 31, 1974, very few news organs or individuals recognized or attached any significance to the unusual and unexplainable degree of speed with which the case was handled. As we see it, however, such haste suggests that presence of an unseen but interested hand lurking in the background and hurrying the case on for some definite purpose. As inconsequential as this rush may seem to some people, one cannot help but consider the possibility that it made some of the desired impact on the preparational aspect of the case, at least. Who knows then in what other ways, other aspects of the case might have been influenced by the effect of such undue haste?” In this article, K. Neville A. Best has deviously implied that there was an unseen interested hand lurking in the background and hurrying the trial of the case for some purpose. But he has failed to name the source. What more vile implication could be made of a court within our judicial system, its officers, and jurors? Temporarily leaving the issue of Best, we now come to pages i8, 19, 22, 25, and 3o of The Revelation under the caption “Albert Porte, Liberia’s Ichabod,” taken from the files of the editors, in which they portray our society today and naming figures in other lands. They, too, have commented on the Tolbert-Porte case in the following manner on page 19 of the issue. “The presence of this ‘triangle’ in the court room, and especially so behind the bench of the jury astonished many. But that was only the beginning of the many moves which succeeded in intimidating the jury. LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 7 “Letters which had the authentic signatures of the President, Minister of Government, etc., and which Mr. Porte presented as evidence were discarded and rejected by the court ‘under the rule of law.’ In the words of the court, ‘they cannot be ruled to trial.’ Yet, Mr. Porte was expected to produce evidence.” Continuing their comment on the trial of the case in the court below, the editors continued. “On the next day, there was an unusual stillness in the air as hundreds of people gathered to hear the verdict. Porte was branded as a ‘wicked’ person who had been used by others to fight Tolbert, his ‘fellow up-river boys.’ `You know, gentlemen of the jury,’ Senator Raynes said, ‘whenever the people want to harm an up-river man, they use a man from the river to do so.’ The jury was composed largely of men from the St. Paul River District and the Stockton Creek area, those who are usually referred to as ‘up-river boys’ (the 19th century Liberian elite). The Senator-Counsellor made every effort to convince the jury that this was an ethnic struggle. In utter disregard for the sedition law which prohibits sectionalism, he didn’t fail to tell the jury in the open court and before the throne of justice that they should remember that they all are `up-river boys.’ It should be recalled that Senator Raynes supported the amendment to the Sedition Act passed a few months ago. “The jury looked spellbound by the many things thrown at them. ‘Which administration ever gave you $20.00 for a demijohn of cane juice–not Tolbert?’ Legislator-Counsellor J. C. N. Howard shouted with fiery, outstretched eyes. ‘I want you to consider these things, gentlemen,’ he cautioned. Murmurs from the lobby sounded like the rumbling of a boulder downhill. ‘Don’t mind them,’ Howard exclaimed, 8 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS pointing to the crowd. ‘Porte is just fooling these University students–but Willie will get them one by one.’ ” ‘About a month ago,’ Legislator Howard explained, ‘I was in Tokyo, Japan, attending a conference along with Senator Frank Tolbert. At a reception, a gentleman asked the Senator if he was the owner of the Mesurado Fishing Company. “No, it is my brother Stephen Tolbert,” he replied. Well, the shrimps (crawfish) we are serving are from Mesurado.’ The jurors looked on the stiff necks. ‘Yon see, gentlemen of the jury, when a man like Stephen Tolbert, who is known not only in Liberia, but in the world, is accused of stealing, it is serious.’ Howard continued, ‘but let me tell you something: It is not this man, Stephen Tolbert, who they are aiming at ; they want to disrupt this whole administration–that’s what they want to do.’ There was dead silence. What was supposed to be a case of libel had taken the nature of a treason trial. “Earlier, Senator-Counsellor Raynes while addressing the jury said, ‘If any of you–I mean any of you come and say that Porte is not guilty, then you were in the meeting with him.’ He must have been referring to the solidarity rally held by citizens to raise funds for Albert Porte’s legal defense. The plaintiff’s lawyers continued to bombard the jury with emotional, sentimental and ethno-socio-political statements. At one point of the trial, Judge Flomo was forced to warn, ‘Leave politics out of this case. We are here to hear a case of libel.’ “Defense lawyers Chesson and Berry spoke out, quoting several points of law from the Liberian Code of Laws, Liberian Law Reports, Blackstone, American Jurisprudence, etc. “Their presentations were well organized ; their brilliance, eloquence and direction, characteristic of LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 9 trained lawyers, provoked applause from the lobby. `This case is unique,’ Counsellor Chesson said. ‘In all other cases of libel, the defendants charged the plaintiffs directly : “You stole my chicken” or “you are a rogue.” Explaining the difference, he said that Mr. Porte had used similies and metaphors in getting his idea across. He did not say that Mr. Tolbert was a ‘highway robber, etc.’ Chesson challenged any and all lawyers from Cape Mount to Cape Palmas to prove that this is not a different case. Concluding, he said, ‘let it be said that this day in the Republic of Liberia, Justice was done.’ Two hours of legal calisthenics had ended for the defense. “Mr. Tolbert’s lawyers fired again. The emotional spell of Counsellor Howard this time was uncontrollable. Chesson and Berry had scored, and he was determined to displace them. ‘This man, Stephen Tolbert, is worth millions of dollars,’ he said at one point, `and if you jam Porte now, he can’t show you twentyfive cents.’ “In an effort to influence the jury, he began to link national development and family connections with the case. ‘Just the other day, Mr. Tolbert went to the World Bank to get twenty-five million dollars to build our roads and schools, and to do other development,’ Legislator Howard said. ‘They refused to give the money. You know why? It is because of this same Albert Porte case. The people put the book (Liberianization or Gobbling Business?) before him. They said, “this is what one of your men has said. A man who has a high distinction from your Government and who receives a government check.” You see what Mr. Tolbert was faced with?’ The information was interesting. Not only did it claim the attention of the spellbound jurors; it aroused the entire lobby. “When Mr. Tolbert was accused of Gobbling Busi- 10 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS ness it was widely expected that the Government would have immediately launched an investigation into the issue, since it involved the Minister of Finance, whose reputation and trustworthiness are worth dollars over a three (3) year period. This really is a great boost to our economic advancement. That’s great!!! Amazing!!! Commendable!!! Suggestive. . . .” (See pages 19, 22, 25, and 3o of Revelation.) Be this as it may, whether or not the arguments made by plaintiff’s lawyers were prejudicial to the trial of the case, and that the trial judge had rebuked them, the respondents were not legally clothed with authority to give public expression concerning the mode of the trial when it was pending before this Court. Looking at the cover of the pamphlet at issue, we see a caricature, carefully and artistically depicting what seems to be the blind Goddess of Justice, holding in her hands scales, one side heavily weighted with money and the other without. One eye closed to justice and truth and the other opened, looking toward the side of the scales weighted with money, subtly implying that corruption exists in the Judiciary of the Republic of Liberia, and litigants cannot be guaranteed their rights. The writers continue: “We cannot help but wonder at the intelligence of such unpatriotic men who become so absorbed in the personal interests and desires of individuals–trivial when compared to the welfare of the State–that they gamble away and sacrifice the future of the whole legal system of this nation for those selfish purposes. And then sarcastically propound a question, ‘1974.– Year of Justice?’ ” Counsel for respondents submitted to this Court a plea that his clients be purged of contempt and that the court accept their apologies, setting forth extenuating circumstances for the errors committed by them. The learned LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 11 counsel for respondents also made an appeal when the case was again called for hearing before this Court, pleading the right of free speech and the lack of malice on the part of his clients. (See Minutes of Court, Wednesday, January 13, 1975.) At the hearing Counsellor J. Dossen Richards, who with Toye C. Barnard had been appointed by the Court as amici curiae, emphasized that in his opinion, when a matter is sub judice, any act of the nature charged to respondents, or any one for that matter, which had a tendency to prejudice the minds of the jury, would be contemptuous. He continued that he would not like to see this Court give an impression to the public and the world that the Court would suppress the liberty of the press in this country, or suppress the publication of matters before a court, except where it interferes with the impartial administration of justice. That if publication was made when the case was before the jury, then he would see the wrong of the respondents herein and would regard it as an act of contempt; but the matter is before the Supreme Court on appeal, a forum not susceptible to outside influences such as this publication. He, therefore, asked the respondents�be purged of contempt. Counsellor Barnard, assuming the position of an umpire, declared the last paragraph of the appeal of counsel for respondents was inconsistent with the rest of the points raised in the petition; in that, in the preceding paragraphs, he admitted that respondents committed the acts out of ignorance of the law, yet, in another instance he declared that they did not commit the act because they were ignorant of the law, but because the Supreme Court was not a jury. This was justification. He declared that the caricature of the blind Goddess of Justice as depicted in The Revelation did have some relationship with the articles for which the respondents were charged with contempt. He was not in agreement that the acts complained of should be treated lightly and go unnoticed, 12 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS for to do so would be condoning the acts of the respondents. He, however, concluded his observations with a prayer for mercy. Lest we forget and not bring it into focus, we recall that at the hearing, co-respondent K. Neville A. Best was asked by the Court to explain in full what he meant by “we feel the need to express our deep resentment for the mockery which the pursuit of Justice in Liberia has been reduced to, in the name of the law.” What he said is set forth below: “This reference was meant to attack the frivolous and irregular manner in which counsel involved in the trial on both sides were carrying on in the midst of so urgent and important a case; that one moment they would involve themselves in frivolities, while at another moment, seriousness seemed to prevail. The apparent friendship with which the counsellors went along during the trial was what I was referring to and not the judicial system. The attitude of the counsellors, whom they regard as their elders, fathers and brothers would tend to reduce the system of the whole judiciary to a mockery.” Co-respondent Best needs to be reminded that no oral testimony can explain a written document. What he had written were his thoughts. As we now ponder over the contempt proceedings the submission and the appeal brought by respondents, considering the extenuating facts and circumstances as shown in the columns of The Revelation, we feel safe to say that it is true that: “The constitutional guaranty of liberty of the press is one of the strongest bulwarks of liberty ; and the newspapers, magazines, and other journals of the country have shed and continue to shed more light on the public and business affairs of the nation than any other form of publicity; and since informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment, the suppression or abridgment of the publicity afforded by a LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 13 free press cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern. A free press stands as one of the greatest interpreters between the government and the people. To allow it to be fettered is to be fettered ourselves.” “The freedom of the press consists largely of the right, without any previous license or censorship, to publish the truth with good motives and for justifiable ends, whether it respects government, magistracy, or individuals. In its broadest sense, the phrase ‘freedom of the press,’ includes not only exemption from censorship, but security against laws enacted by the legislative department of the Government or measures resorted to by either of the other branches for the purpose of stiffling just criticism or muzzling public opinion.” I I AM. JuR., Constitutional Law, � 320 ( 1 937)� “Under right of the freedom of speech and of the press, it is generally recognized that the public has a right to know and discuss all judicial proceedings, unless such right is expressly interdicted by constitutional provisions or unless the publication is of such nature as to obstruct or embarrass the court in its administration of the law. This does not, however, include the right to attempt, by wanton defamation, to prejudice the rights of litigants in a pending cause, degrade the tribunal, and impede, embarrass or corrupt the due administration of justice.” Id. “While the liberty of the press under constitutional guaranties may not be altogether restrained, he who abuses the right may nevertheless be held in contempt proceedings.” Id., � 321. “The right or privilege of free speech and publication guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and of the several states, has its limitations. It is not an absolute right.” Id. “The inherent power of the courts to punish any publication calculated to interfere with the adminis- 14 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS tration of justice, is in no way restricted by the constitutional guaranties of liberty of the press. Liberty of the press is subordinate to independence of the judiciary, and it is not expedient that any class in the community should be privileged to attack the courts with the view to interfere with the rights of litigants or to embarrass the administration of justice. Liberty of the press must not be confounded with license or abuse of that liberty. The publishers of newspapers have the right, but no higher right than others, to bring to public notice the conduct of courts and parties, after the decision has been made (emphasis supplied) and provided the publications are true and fair in spirit, for there is no law to restrain or punish the freest expression of the disapprobation that any person may entertain of what is done in or by the courts.” 6 R.C.L., Contempt, � 22 (1915). “It is now a generally acknowledged rule that certain publications in newspapers may amount to con- tempt of court, and may be summarily punished as such. A publication pending a suit, reflecting upon the court, the jury, the parties, the officers of the court, or the attorneys, with reference to the suit, and having a tendency to influence the action of the tribunal before which the case is pending . . . is a contempt of that court, which may be summarily punished. . . . This is true where a newspaper takes sides, comments on the evidence and expresses an opinion as to the merits, or proclaims an accused innocent and libels the witnesses for the prosecution. Such an article may be an unlawful interference with the proceedings of a court under a constitutional provision, and its publication in the place where the court is sitting may be punished as misbehavior in the presence of the court.” Id.,�21. “Constitutional rights of liberty of speech and of the press are subject to such reasonable regulations as LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 15 are necessary to promote and preserve public welfare. In a general way the constitutional liberty grants the right freely to utter and publish whatever a citizen may desire and to be protected in so doing, provided always that such publications are not blasphemous, obscene, seditious, or scandalous in their character so that they become an offense against the public and by their malice and falsehood injuriously affect the character, reputation, or pecuniary interest of individuals. A state may punish those who abuse the constitutional freedom of speech by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals, incite to crime or disturb the public peace.” u AM. JUR., Constitutional Law, � 321 (1937). It should, therefore, be affirmed that during the consideration of causes before the courts of Liberia, no outside influence, including newspaper reports, should be permitted. The first amendment of the American Constitution guarantees freedom of the press in one short sentence : “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” But Article I, Section 15th, of the Liberian Constitution is more elaborate. “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state ; it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this Republic. “The printing press shall be free to every person, who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the Legislature, or any branch of government; and no law shall ever be made to restrain the rights thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.” Paraphrased and reduced to the simplest terms this means a person has the right to say and to write anything he likes, but he must take the consequences for any hurt 16 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS done to the rights of others, by such speech or writing. But some have long felt that this constitutional provision has been abused, that is to say, that it protects the speaker or publisher, without allowing equal protection to the party against whom the speech or writing is made. Edwin S. Corwin, an American lawyer and constitutional writer, in his treatise entitled The Constitution and What It Means for Today, which analyzes several American Supreme Court opinions involving constitutional issues, made a comment on page 196 of his book. “According to Blackstone, who was the oracle of the common law when the first amendment was framed, liberty of the press consists in laying no previous restraint upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every free man has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public ; to forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, and illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. . . . To punish any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty.” The constitutional guaranty of freedom of the press is no barrier which prevents courts from exercising their power to punish for contempt the publication of improper articles concerning a case pending in litigation. The position finds support in this Court’s opinion in Liberian Bar Association v. Gittens[1941] LRSC 12; , 7 LLR 253,256-257 (1941). “While it may seem somewhat incongruous to speak, as the courts often do, of enforcing respect for the law and for the means it has provided in civilized communities for establishing justice, since true respect never comes in that way, it is apparent nevertheless LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 17 that the power to enforce decorum in the courts and obedience to their orders and just measures is so essentially a part of the life of the courts that it would be difficult to conceive of their usefulness or efficiency as existing without it. Therefore it may be said generally that where due respect for the courts as ministers of the law is wanting, a necessity arises for the use of compulsion, not, however, so much to excite individual respect as to compel obedience or to remove an unlawful or unwarranted interference with the administration of justice. . . . Contempt of court has been defined as a despising of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; and he is guilty of contempt whose conduct is such as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses during the litigations. Contempts are classified as direct or indirect, and as criminal or civil ; a direct contempt being such as is offered in the presence of the court while sitting judicially; and, an indirect or, as it is sometimes called, a constructive contempt being such as tends by its operation, though not committed in court, to obstruct and embarrass or prevent the due administration of justice. . . . “A constructive contempt is an act done not in the presence of the court, but at a distance which tends to belittle, to degrade, or to obstruct, interrupt, prevent or embarrass the administration of justice.” It is well known that in our judicial system it is improper for anyone to comment on a decision given by a subordinate court, or to discuss any phase of it with anyone while it is still sub judice on appeal, that is, while the case is under or before a judge or court, or under judicial consideration, as in an appeal, and undetermined, as in the instant case. Judge Alfred B. Flomo in positive, clear, and unequivocal language declared that from the date of his ruling “and until final determination of the 18 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS action of damages for libel filed by Stephen A. Tolbert against Albert Porte, all . . . premature publication of matter connected with the case and all statements of support from any person or group of persons are prohibited, restrained and enjoined.” These are apparent statements and one must wonder what motivated respondent K. Neville A. Best and his coeditors to violate this order and commence a newspaper trial of the issues still pending before the Court, on appeal. If it is nothing apparent, then the logical conclusion for the motivation is defiance and disregard for the authority of the courts. During argument in these proceedings it was suggested that the Court exercise leniency in punishing the admitted contempt of the contemners, because it was feared that to inflict harsh punishment for the admitted contemptuous publication, might be interpreted as an attempt by the Court to muzzle the press. The suggestion is not well taken in light of the circumstances in the case and the well-known attitude of this bench with respect to undisputed enjoyment of the rights vouchsafed under Article I, Section 15th, of the Constitution. The Court has an inherent right to punish for contempt whether the offensive behavior is or is not admitted by the offenders. The constitutional privilege of freedom of the press does not, and was never intended to protect disrespect to and defiance of court orders, or the assailing of the Court’s dignity. “It is enough to subject the offending publisher to punishment if the publication is very objectionable and the case to which it relates is pending at the time of publication. On this point it is said it is no defense that the defendant did not know that proceedings in court were then pending, especially where legal action is known to be likely.” 6 R.C.L., Contempt, � 25 ( 1 9 1 5) . Every lawyer knows that until final determination of litigation, a law suit is pending. Cases heard and deter- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 19 mined in subordinate courts are finally determined only if no appeal is announced. If an appeal is taken from the judgment or ruling and granted, the case is still pending. This is true whether the case was heard by a jury, or by a judge sitting alone. A cause is pending within the rule of contempt concerning libelous publications when it is still open to modification, appeal, or rehearing. In the case out of which these proceedings grew, an appeal was announced from the judgment in the lower court, and the appeal was granted by the judge. But more important is the fact that the step of approval and filing of the bill of exceptions was taken, leaving the trial court without further jurisdiction. It seems simple that under our practice the only court which could thereafter exercise jurisdiction over any phase of the case would be the court to which the appeal was taken. “The power to punish for contempt exists merely for the purpose of enabling a court to compel due decorum and respect in its presence and due obedience to its judgments, orders and process. Hence, one court is not authorized to punish contempts against another court or tribunal unless the latter is an agency or a part of the punishing court. This rule prevails even though the contempt also constitutes a libel upon the judge. An appeal, however, may so transfer the proceedings to the appellate court that such court may become charged with the enforcement of an order made by the lower court. In such an instance the appellate court may punish for violation of the order.” 12 AM. JUR., Contempt, � 48 (1938). The fair comment rule referred to in argument before us does not apply where the publication regarded as contemptuous impugns the good name of the judicial system and suggests corruption, and reduces justice in Liberia to a mockery as is shown by the text of the January issue of The Revelation, which is the subject of these proceedings. Let us quote again from page 5 of the publication 20 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS issued January 5, as just one instance of the slanderous attack. “Following the jury’s verdict, the defense filed a motion for a new trial which was denied by presiding Judge Alfred Flomo. Mr. Porte is therefore appealing to the Supreme Court in its March Term. We feel the height of such disregard and lack of foresight is reached when dangerous precedents are flagrantly set in the Judicial system of all places, where precedence, the history of issues, rulings, verdicts, etc., have a binding influence and serve as the basis for future legal interpretation, determinations and the overall realization of excellence in our entire legal system, in time yet to come. Hence, we feel the need to express our deep resentment for the mockery which the pursuit of justice in Liberia has been reduced to, in the name of the law.” And this has been written while the case is still pending before the Supreme Court, which is the head of the judicial system referred to in the quotation above. “Judges are not beyond fair respectful criticism for either personal or official conduct, but a knowingly dishonest, false, or libelous publication, impugning the motive, honesty and integrity of the court or its personnel, because of acts done or being done in the administration of justice, is not a criticism in the sense of aiding the court to correct error, and is inconsistent with the public interest, and tends to destroy the usefulness of the court. Misrepresentation of court rulings by misstatements or material omissions, in a report published by an association and issued to those known to be relying upon the truth of its contents, cannot be excused by merely denying any intent of deception.” State v. Shumaker, 200 Ind. 623, 157 N.E. 769, 58 A.L.R. 954, 955 (1927). We hold that publishing the proceedings in a case on appeal before the Supreme Court, and making comments LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 21 and expressing opinions on issues involved in the case, issues which would of necessity have to be passed upon by the appellate court, is not only improper, but grossly contemptuous, if such publication is made before the Supreme Court can hear and decide the said issues. And whenever this happens, the Court will not fail to charge and punish the offender for contempt. “Publication by means of bulletin boards, notices or handbills, circulars, pamphlets, public addresses, petitions, private comments by one not a party to the case as to the condition of public prejudice, or advertisements amounting to a threat of exposure or pointing out error in the action of the court may amount to contempt of court. Similarly, it may be contempt for one, especially if not a party to the case, to circulate copies of pleadings or other documents in pending litigation.” 12 AM. PA., Contempt, � 39 (1938) We now come to consider The Revelation’s January 1975 issue, which utterly disregarded Judge Flomo’s order prohibiting comment and/or discussion of the issues in the case, until after final determination. Normally, a responsible newspaper would refrain from publishing anything involved in a pending case; this is not only proper journalistic behavior, but it exemplifies respect for the rights of the parties in litigation, and it also shows regard for the judicial institution before which the case is pending. The December issue of The Revelation had published matters pleaded in the case then pending before the Civil Law Court, and the judge had held the editors, who are again answering in this case, in contempt of court. He purged them of the contempt of which he found them guilty, but warned them to desist from further publication of and concerning issues in the case during its pendency, under penalty of imprisonment for violation. They appealed from the ruling to the March 1975 Term of the Supreme Court. 22 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS Notwithstanding this warning, and in defiance of the court’s order, and before their appeal could be heard by the Supreme Court, in the very next issue of the paper not only did they discuss the merits and demerits of the issues on appeal, but ridiculed, degraded, and in a caricature on the outside cover of the paper placed a figure supposed to represent the Goddess of Justice; they implied corruption in the Court, and asked, “1974–year of justice?” And all this was done, knowing that the judicial system is headed by the Supreme Court, before which the said appeal is now pending. They sought to embarrass the Court in any decision it might take in the case on appeal. We hold that the Supreme Court of Liberia has a responsibility to protect our political society generally ; but particularly is it our responsibility and duty to uphold and protect the authority of the Court, and the judicial system. Unwarranted attack upon the Judiciary by any person, or newspaper, is an attempt to undermine the very foundation of the third branch of Government. We have to decide where to draw the line between the enjoyment of the constitutional right of liberty of the press, and abuse of that liberty by irresponsible persons on the other hand. We hold firmly to the view that when any newspaper in defiance of the orders of a court in Liberia, proceeds to do the very acts which the court order forbids, it is not only irresponsible, but dangerous and a threat to the safety of our political society. On page 478 of Mason and Beaney’s treatise on the “Tests of Freedom,” in American Constitutional Law, 3rd ed. (1964), the problem is considered. “In cases involving freedom of speech, of press, or of religion, the court must interpret and apply a grant of power–of the state–while at the same time it must interpret and apply a constitutional limitation on government power. Governments have police power to maintain themselves against attacks from within, just as military power is needed to resist attacks from with- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 23 out. Police power, meaning in this context the power necessary to maintain a peaceful and orderly society, is an obvious requisite of government, for every man tends to value his own freedom more dearly than his neighbor’s. On the other hand, the court is aware that the American political tradition has been opposed to unlimited governmental power, and that the Bill of Rights represents one of the ‘auxiliary precautions’ against its emergence. Moreover, the guarantees of the First Amendment are fundamental in a democratic society–free speech, a free press, and the right of assembly make possible a continuing debate on issues large and small, without which the electoral process becomes an empty ritual. The free exercise of religion and the separation of church and state represent the American solution to one of the basic issues in the Western political tradition–the proper relation of state and church, of man to his God and his government. “It is apparent, then, that the easy path to constitutional decision by way of the presumption of constitutionality of legislative or administrative action is not readily available in this field. The court has been forced to invent tests and create presumptions when confronted with clashes between individual freedom and state power. Whatever tests are employed, its answers must depend ultimately on the Justices’ view of correct social policy and their conception of the role of the judiciary in achieving balance between freedom and order. By 1925 the Court possessed two tests for First Amendment cases–‘clear and present danger,’ a test that seemed to express a preference for free speech, and ‘bad tendency’ a test more favorable to legislative action.” We recognize the fact that the Court cannot violate the constitutional guaranty of liberty of the press and does not have power to suppress newspapers or to prohibit 24 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS their publication. For it is not within the compass of legislative action, and any law enacted for elm purpose is clearly in derogation of the constitutional liberty of the press. In the case before us, the pamphlet in which libelous articles have appeared, is not a legal entity. Yet it continues to publish articles that are dangerous and detrimental to an orderly society. Yet, under the right of a free press, this pamphlet should not be isolated or curbed. It would be considered unconstitutional. And the good name of government and its institutions, individuals, and society, continue to be dragged in the dust. Good conscience and reason would demand that freedom of the press in the present case be subordinated to the will of the majority. One should never advocate strict adherence to the technical constitutional provision insuring freedom of the press, when doing so may prove adverse to the interests of society. It should never escape us that the safety of the state is the highest law. It is our view that any work published in violation of our 1956 Code 25 :3o, 31, 32, or that presents a clear danger to the state should be dealt with firmly. Therefore, the Revelation should be and is restrained from further publication and circulation within the Republic of Liberia, until such time when it shall have met all of the legal requirements pertaining to newspaper publication and circulation under our copyright laws. Earlier during the hearing of these proceedings, respondents’ counsel requested us to cover certain specifics in our opinion: the reason for the contempt proceedings, the rule on fair comment, and whether or not court proceedings can receive newspaper coverage. Because we are of the belief that we have already answered these questions, we find it unnecessary to further deal with these matters. Conclusion In view of all the facts and circumstances, and what LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 25 we have found, it is our considered opinion that the conduct of respondents in this case, by their deliberate publication of matter intended to bring the judiciary into public disrepute in order that the public lose confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, are guilty of contempt of this Court. Because of the gravity of the charge, we had decided to impose prison sentences on each of the respondents, but because of the confession of guilt on their part and the appeal of their counsel, to temper justice with mercy, and also because of the intervention of the lawyers who were appointed by the court as amici curiae, we have decided to impose fines as punishment. Consequently, each respondent having been found guilty of contempt, is hereby ordered to pay into the Bureau of Revenues, within 24 hours after the rendition of judgment, the amount set forth for each. K. Neville A. Best $5,000.00 Vittorio A. Jesus Weeks 4,000.00 Willard Russell 4,000.00 Ernestine Cassell 4,000.00 In the case of Albert Porte who has also been found guilty of contempt of this Court, we have decided to purge him of contempt because of his announcement of an appeal from judgment rendered against him in the case referred to earlier, Tolbert v. Porte, an action for damages, which is now pending before the Supreme Court. Because of the absence from the Republic of Liberia of Patrick Borrowes, he could not be made a party herein. Because The Revelation does not have legal status, as earlier observed, the publication and circulation thereof is hereby prohibited and restrained until such a time when it shall have gained legal status and complied with our statutory laws governing publication and circulation of newspapers. That in the event if any respondent fails to comply