Our disagreement with Senator Amara Konneh over the Cybercrime Act.
We respectfully disagree with Senator Amara Konneh’s explanation of his vote for Liberia’s Cybercrime Act.
Our disagreement is not with fighting cybercrime. Liberia needs strong laws against hacking, fraud, identity theft, cyberstalking and other genuine online crimes.
Our concern is more fundamental:
At every stage of making an Act of the Legislature, the Liberian Constitution must come first.
Not after a citizen is arrested. Not after controversy emerges. Not when a court is asked to determine whether a provision violates a constitutional right.
The Constitution must be the starting point.
Senator Konneh now says Article 15, which protects freedom of expression, is “nonnegotiable.” We agree.
But if Article 15 is nonnegotiable, then every provision of the Cybercrime Act affecting speech and expression should have been carefully tested against the Constitution before lawmakers voted for it.
That is the responsibility of legislators.
WAS THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS SUFFICIENT?
This is where our concern becomes even deeper.
We question whether Senator Konneh and his legislative colleagues subjected this important piece of legislation to the level of consultation and scrutiny that it deserved.
A law dealing directly with freedom of expression, privacy, digital communications, criminal liability and the powers of law-enforcement authorities should invite broad consultation.
Were constitutional lawyers adequately consulted? Were journalists and media organizations heard? Were technology and cybersecurity experts brought into the process? Were civil-society organizations, human-rights advocates and other stakeholders given sufficient opportunity to examine the proposed legislation?
These are legitimate questions.
Our concern is that the legislation appears to have moved with considerable speed, without a sufficiently transparent public conversation about its potential impact on fundamental rights.
If lawmakers did conduct extensive consultations, the Legislature should make those consultations public. Liberians deserve to know who was consulted, what concerns were raised and how those concerns were addressed.
Important legislation should not become a mystery to the people who will ultimately be governed by it.
INTENTION IS NOT ENOUGH
We accept that the Cybercrime Act may have legitimate objectives.
But good intentions cannot by themselves make legislation constitutional.
The critical question is not simply what lawmakers intended the law to do.
It is what the law permits and how it can be enforced.
The controversy surrounding the arrest of Jerry Nyantee Wrato has demonstrated why this matters. Whatever one’s view of the AI-generated material involving Vice President Jeremiah Kpan Koung, the case has raised serious questions about the boundary between legitimate expression and criminal conduct under the new law.
That boundary should be clear before citizens are arrested—not discovered afterward.
OUR DISAGREEMENT WITH KONNEH
Senator Konneh says legitimate criticism of public officials is not a cybercrime. We agree.
He says Article 15 cannot be overridden by legislation. We agree.
But he was not an outside observer when the Cybercrime Act was enacted. He was a lawmaker who voted for it.
Therefore, explaining what the law was intended to accomplish does not answer the fundamental question:
Was the legislation sufficiently scrutinized to ensure that it could not infringe constitutional rights?
If there were ambiguities, lawmakers had the opportunity to correct them.
If there were constitutional concerns, lawmakers had the opportunity to address them.
And if there was insufficient consultation, lawmakers had the opportunity to slow down and listen.
Why should Liberians become test cases for questions lawmakers could have confronted before passage?
THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT AN AFTERTHOUGHT
We believe the Legislature must accept responsibility for the laws it creates.
Every bill should be measured against the Constitution before it becomes law.
Every amendment should be measured against the Constitution.
Every final vote should be guided by the Constitution.
And when the law is eventually enforced, its application must remain consistent with constitutional protections.
The Constitution must be at the head of the entire process.
Senator Konneh says Article 15 is “nonnegotiable.”
We agree.
But if that principle is genuine, then the appropriate next step is not simply to explain the vote.
It is to review the Cybercrime Act, publish the legislative and consultation record, identify provisions that may threaten constitutional freedoms, and amend them where necessary.
Liberia needs effective cybercrime legislation.
But Liberia also needs a law that protects citizens without undermining the Constitution.
The fight against cybercrime must never become a fight against constitutional freedom.
The Constitution must come first. Always.
