A few days ago, I had the opportunity to have a tête-à-tête with my friend and traditional intellectual and academic militant nephew, Binyah C. Kesselly (Kezzo), who made a comment that struck me on several national issues, particularly national security regarding our beloved motherland, Liberia, which prompted this article.
“National security is a sacred responsibility, but it is not a license to operate beyond the law. Those entrusted with protecting the Republic must protect not only its borders and institutions but also its Constitution, its citizens, their rights, and their dignity.”
President Boakai’s June 3, 2026, launch of Liberia’s National Security Strategy 2026–2036 provides particularly relevant language for discussing the legal and ethical responsibilities of security institutions.
“Security is foundational—it is both a prerequisite and a catalyst for development.”
“National security is not the sole responsibility of the traditional security sector; rather, it is a shared responsibility that encompasses good governance, justice, economic security, and social cohesion.”
“We will continue to invest in intelligence coordination, border security, and community-based policing approaches that foster trust between citizens and security agencies.”
“Our true security rests upon how well we fulfill our democratic promise.”
Samuel Kofi Woods II — National Security Advisor:
At the 2026 launch of the National Security Strategy, National Security Advisor Samuel Kofi Woods II emphasized the people-centered character of national security. “Security must serve the people, and the people must be an active part of delivering security.”
Major General Daniel D. Ziankahn (Retired) — Military Advisor to the President: “This strategy will address both hard and soft security issues and will serve the purpose of safeguarding our nation’s sovereignty, stability, and development objectives.”
Major General Prince Charles Johnson III (Retired): The Liberian National Security Agency identifies Major General Prince Charles Johnson III as its director. It describes the NSA’s primary mission as collecting, analyzing, evaluating, and disseminating intelligence to help the president and senior policymakers make national-security decisions.
“Every Liberian is obligated to protect the national security of the country.”
National Chronicles Newspaper and Philipbert S. Browne v. Government of Liberia — Supreme Court of Liberia, 2015: The Court stated: “We see no tangible reason for the continued closure of the offices of the National Chronicles Newspaper.”
The Court concluded: “To continue to have the offices of the National Chronicles Newspaper closed without a court order long after the state of emergency is a violation of the petitioners’ rights not contemplated by law.”
By: Austin S Fallah – A True Son of the Planet Earth Soil: [email protected]
In the intricate landscape of national security, the interplay between instructions given and actions taken can blur moral lines and complicate accountability.
At the heart of this discussion is a troubling question: can a government successfully prosecute a messenger directed to execute national-security orders while simultaneously absolving the individual who issued them, especially when those commands may carry a deceptive or criminal undertone?
The scenario raises legal, ethical, and practical challenges that warrant thorough exploration.
To unpack this conundrum, one must first contextualize the legal principles surrounding agency, liability, and national security.
In jurisprudence, the concept of agency establishes that an agent (in this case, the messenger) acts on behalf of a principal (the individual who provided the instructions).
When a clear crime is orchestrated under the guise of legitimate national security operations, the question of who bears responsibility becomes paramount.
Courts generally adhere to the principle that an agent who acts within the scope of their authority should not bear liability for actions taken in good faith, even if those directives may ultimately be deemed unlawful.
Yet, if the principal harbors malfeasance, a court may struggle to align equitable treatment of the messenger with holding the principal accountable.
The legal ramifications of such a case could prove analogous to the doctrine of vicarious liability, wherein an employer (or, in this case, a government as the agent’s principal) may be held responsible for the actions of its employees if those actions were taken in the course of employment.
However, national security operations are often shrouded in secrecy, complicating liability.
How could a court ethically navigate the testimony of a messenger acting under orders, especially if these orders implicitly involve dangerous legal interpretations?
To delve deeper, consider a hypothetical scenario in which a government agent, John, is instructed to transfer funds for a classified initiative labeled “Project Vanguard.”
Unbeknownst to John, the project’s true purpose is not to bolster national security but to line the pockets of a corrupt official.
If John carries out the transfer without awareness of the underlying fraud, can he truly be held liable for participating in a scheme he believed served his country’s interests?
Legally, he may indeed have a robust defense grounded in the doctrine of acting under lawful authority.
The burden of proof lies with the government to demonstrate not only that the messenger acted negligently but also that he had knowledge or ought to have known about the wrongdoing.
Yet, if the government pursues this case while refraining from addressing the actions of the principal directing the funds, it raises serious questions of credibility and fairness.
The optics of prosecuting only the messenger, while leaving the orchestrator free from examination, may lead the public to perceive the government’s actions as a “witch hunt.”
Such a perception could undermine public trust in the judicial system and call into question the integrity of the national security apparatus, which relies on public cooperation and secrecy.
This dilemma resonates with historical examples where messengers faced scrutiny.
Consider journalists or informants who inadvertently relay false information after being manipulated by authoritative sources.
While prosecuting an individual for disseminating misinformation may seem just, the judiciary’s moral fortitude may be compromised if the source remains unexamined.
The implications stretch beyond the courtroom; they highlight the potential for abuse in operations cloaked in national security that demand an accountability mechanism for principals directing such actions.
Drawing parallels with corporate law, consider the Enron scandal, where lower-level employees who executed orders in perceived compliance with management faced severe consequences for actions taken under managerial directives.
The disparity in accountability between those higher up in the hierarchy and those merely executing directions is a recurring theme in discussions of justice and ethics.
It underscores an innate contradiction: how can society champion ethical conduct when, often, only the lower-tier individuals face repercussions for systemic failures underpinned by higher-level misconduct?
In contexts fraught with national security implications, the challenge takes on another dimension.
The army of legal protections afforded to whistleblowers illuminates the treacherous territory surrounding accountability.
Often, individuals who expose wrongdoing must navigate a labyrinth of legal protections, which raises the question: if a messenger can present evidence of wrongdoing at the highest level, should they be granted protections that extend beyond mere employee status?
The balance of power is precarious; one misstep and trust in those safeguarding national interests could fracture, chilling legitimate voices that might otherwise shine light on clandestine activities.
The core issue then remains: how may justice not only be preserved but enhanced in multi-layered national security operations?
The judiciary, being the arbiter of morality and ethics, must function with agility to discern between lawful directives and those that mask criminality.
A judicial framework robust enough to hold principals accountable while adequately protecting messengers is critical.
It requires comprehensive oversight from legislative bodies, clear guidelines for prosecuting individuals involved in national security, and an unwavering commitment to ethical legal practices.
An effective solution could emerge in the formation of independent oversight committees.
These bodies could investigate allegations of misconduct and serve to bridge the accountability gap by assessing the legality of actions taken by both messengers and principals.
Such an initiative would not only serve as a legal mechanism but also signal transparency and a commitment to ethical governance.
As governments navigate the complex ethics and laws surrounding national security operations, prosecuting messengers while shielding principals risks diminishing public confidence and casting doubt on the intentions of those at the helm.
Striking a balance that holds everyone accountable, especially those who may exploit the veil of national security, is not only a judicial necessity but also a societal imperative.
Through proactive legal frameworks and a vigorous commitment to ethical governance, it is possible to address this intricate scenario, which remains central to the discourse on ensuring justice and integrity in governance.
The pursuit of justice should ensure that while messengers are protected for following lawful orders, principals issuing dubious commands are held equally accountable, thus fortifying the very foundations on which societal trust rests.
