Dear Members of the Peter Quaqua Mediation Team,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to you with a heavy heart but also with a fervent hope for resolution and restoration within our esteemed Press Union of Liberia (PUL).

Firstly, I want to express my sincere gratitude for the efforts undertaken by the Peter Quaqua Mediation Team to navigate the turbulent waters of the PUL crisis that stemmed from the 2022 elections. Your dedication to mediating this complex situation, involving deeply rooted grievances and divergent perspectives, has not gone unnoticed.

I acknowledge the challenges faced by Team Julius and their concerns regarding the conduct of the elections. However, it is disheartening to note that despite numerous attempts by the PUL leadership to engage in dialogue and address these concerns, Team Julius opted to pursue legal action, leading to a prolonged stalemate that has deeply affected the integrity and functionality of our Union.

In the midst of this crisis, Daniel Nyakonah’s remarkable act of stepping aside from the presidency, despite his belief in the legitimacy of his victory, deserves commendation. His selfless decision was a pivotal moment that could have paved the way for reconciliation and the restoration of our Union’s dignity.

It is with disappointment that I observe the lack of acknowledgment for Mr. Nyakonah’s sacrifice from the mediation team. His gesture significantly eased the path toward resolution, yet it appears to have been overlooked in the pursuit of closure. However, what I have observed is what appears to be a complete neglect of the mediation process by Mr. Quaqua and Co since Daniel’s resignation from the leadership of the Union.

Furthermore, I fail to comprehend the rationale behind Team Julius’ persistence in pursuing the case in court. With Mr. Nyakonah’s resignation, the opportunity for a fresh start and a fresh election process presents itself. Continuing litigation only prolongs the agony and undermines the very purpose for which legal action was initiated.

In light of these circumstances, I implore the Peter Quaqua Mediation Team to intervene decisively. I urge you to use your influence to persuade Team Julius to withdraw the case from court and engage in renewed mediation efforts aimed at organizing a new, transparent election for the PUL. Only through genuine dialogue, cooperation, and compromise can we hope to heal the divisions that have plagued our Union and restore its credibility.

In closing, I appeal to your sense of duty and commitment to the principles of unity and journalistic integrity. The future of the Press Union of Liberia hangs in the balance, and your intervention could make all the difference in steering us toward a brighter, more harmonious tomorrow.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I eagerly anticipate a positive response from your esteemed team.

Yours sincerely,

Lennart Dodoo

Editor,

FrontPageAfrica

Member of the PUL

Free expression thus, makes election an intriguing democratic value. Naturally, the media and journalists are understood to be enablers of democracy as they present the platform for healthy political debates that allow the electorates to make informed choices. But these debates sometimes turned belligerent and inflammatory as we have already seen in the Liberian elections. That’s why conflict practitioners have designated elections as one of the triggers of conflict. Election speeches can easily degenerate into conflict if actors have no self-awareness. There is ample evidence far and near to corroborate the devastating effects of election-related violence. Even established democracies have had their share of election violence, let alone fragile democracies.

More often than not, media and journalists are accused of complicity in fueling and escalating election disputes, rightly or wrongly. Yes, we are all too familiar with the susceptibility of journalists to manipulations by various players.  So, a careful scrutiny of the concept of speech should help media practitioners separate free speech from hate speech. Journalists are not politicians (and I mean those who dare to be professional) and can’t afford to be guilty of any abuse regardless of your disposition on the vexing issues of the moment.

This piece is therefore intended to help safeguard journalists from litigation and attacks, but also to create awareness and protect the public from any kind of violence resulting from the abuse of freedom of expression.  

Drawing the line

Understanding the difference between free speech and hate speech is of the essence in journalism practice. While both theories involve the freedom to express oneself, they differ greatly in their intent and effect.

Free speech is a fundamental right that allows individuals to express their opinions, ideas, and beliefs without censorship or punishment from the government or other authorities. It is central to democratic societies, in promoting open dialogue, diverse viewpoints, and the exchange of information. Free speech covers a broad range of expressions, including political speech, artistic expression, and even offensive or controversial viewpoints. It is protected by laws and constitutions in many countries including Liberia.

On the other hand, hate speech refers to expressions that incite violence, discrimination, or hostility towards individuals or groups based on characteristics such as race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. Hate speech often propagates harmful tagging of people, promotes division, and can have severe emotional and bodily consequences for its targets. Unlike free speech, hate speech is not protected under most legal systems, as it poses a threat to public safety, social harmony, and the well-being of marginalized communities.

One main difference between free speech and hate speech lies in their impact on others. Free speech, even if it may offend or challenge prevailing norms, generally does not directly harm people or incite violence. In contrast, hate speech is intrinsically destructive, as it seeks to humiliate, disgrace, or marginalize individuals or groups. It targets people based on their inherited characteristics or identities, promoting discrimination and prejudgment.

Another difference is the intent behind the speech. Free speech is normally driven by the desire to express one’s thoughts, share information, or engage in constructive debates. It often aims to challenge the status quo, promote social change, or express dissenting opinions. Whereas, hate speech, is inspired by hatred, prejudice, or a desire to subdue or harm others. Its primary purpose is to spread hatred, fear, and division among people.

The Arguments

It is important to note that the margins between free speech and hate speech can sometimes be obscure, and different societies may have different interpretations of what constitutes hate speech. Some argue that any form of speech that promotes discrimination or violence should be curtailed, while others believe in the importance of protecting even offensive or controversial expressions to preserve the principle of free speech.

However, and wherever you stand, free speech and hate speech represent two distinct notions with contrasting impacts, intent, and legal protections. While free speech is a crucial pillar of democratic societies, hate speech poses a threat to societal cohesion, individual well-being, and fairness. Understanding the difference between the two helps foster a more informed and responsible approach to information sharing and expression.

Intolerance

It is excusable for politicians and their supporters to say whatever comes to mind in the context of free speech. They could even choose to lie, insult, and be intolerant of other views. But while facilitating the dissemination of speech, journalists must take responsibility for what they say/write and what they allow in their media outlets. In times of heightened election tension, journalists must reinforce their gatekeeping responsibilities. You don’t want to be held liable for any wrongdoing.

Allow me to also say that journalists are not careless or reckless talkers. Journalists don’t speak anyhow. You don’t use your platforms to express your personal grief or vent your anger. Your speech should be measured in the context of ethics and that speech does not include hate speech. The onus is on you journalists, to protect the civic space and prevent the misuse of your platforms.  

This is Peter Quaqua, your fellow comrade.

There seems to be a general apprehension among public officials about enabling the environment for the press to operate freely in most African countries, so much so that they are prepared to treat journalists as criminals.

Ironically, these public officials and their friends and relatives want to be celebrated as populists, yet they are reluctant to part ways with the tendencies and laws promulgated by dictators to protect themselves in power. Contradiction! 

Just days after Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf submitted the bill to repeal criminal defamation laws to the Legislature, howbeit belatedly, the fear of the press has apparently been reinforced.

There are members of the public and some in officialdom suggesting that “to repeal criminal defamation is to make the press frisky and more unethical,” as though the laws are being kept as weapons against the press.    

Unfortunately, a large portion of the legal community even thinks the same way.

There are lawyers and judges who believe that the only way to “teach journalists lesson” is to throw them behind bars. Perhaps this is the only means to satisfy their clients.

A foreign colleague normally jokes that the Liberian legal system is “obsessed with punishment.”  

Actually, there can be no repudiation of the citizens’ legitimate right to seek legal recourse against media houses and journalists in cases where people’s reputations have been wrongly and willfully maligned in erroneous news reports.

But such cases should be considered civil matters, not criminal offenses, punishable where appropriate by direct compensation and/or repair of injured party’s reputation. 

Financial compensation in civil libel cases notwithstanding should be determined on realistic evaluation of actual damages and the ability for the media outlet to pay, among other considerations.

Excessive judgments or penalties, like the one imposed (rightly or wrongly) on Rodney Sieh and the Front Page Africa in the case Vs Chris Toe, is simply intended to restrain or shut down the operation of the media.

These kinds of actions, amount to official censorship and an infraction of constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression. 

I would like to leave civil libel argument for another day, but the scale of the law suits we have witnessed against the media since the inception of the administration of madam President, is unbelievable. 

These suits have negative implications and chilling effect on journalists. 

Whenever there is an attempt, in good faith or otherwise, to legislate the ethical conduct of journalists, it leads to undue restrictions on their legitimate freedoms to practice, but it also places limitations on the unhindered flow of information. 

Ironically still, Liberia enacted the first Freedom of Information Law in West Africa in 2010, but the country remains keen on punishing its citizens for using those information it has declared freed – as demonstrated in the government’s grab on criminal defamation laws. Contradiction! 

Criminal defamation is simply contrary to the spirit and intent of the FOI – the two cannot work together. I therefore beg our lawmakers to please abolish criminal libel and accept greater reform of media laws. 

The demand for quality and/or ethical journalism should never be used by governments as a prerequisite for enabling press freedom.

On the contrary, according to a publication on Self-regulation by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (the OSCE), “ethical journalism can only develop in an atmosphere of guaranteed freedom. Journalists’ self-restraint must be preceded and accompanied by governmental self-restraint in handling of media.” 

Under Liberian laws, criminal cases are prosecuted by the state, so it is common sense to conclude that when the government prosecutes speech and journalists in criminal charges as it were in criminal libel, it actually treats them as criminals, unfortunately.

Journalists engaged in the act of journalism, are not criminals and should never be treated as one. With all intents and purposes, journalism is a human right activity that all governments must protect. 

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the African Convention on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa, the Declaration of Table Mountain and many other regional and international instruments, obligate member states to conform. 

Pointedly, like the Declaration of Table Mountain, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights Resolution 169, declared in November 2010 that “criminal defamation laws constitute a serious interference with freedom of expression and impedes on the role of the media as a watchdog, preventing journalists and media practitioners from practicing their profession without fear and in good faith.” 

The Resolution therefore “calls on States Parties to repeal criminal defamation laws or insult laws which impede freedom of speech, and to adhere to the provisions of freedom of expression, articulated in the African Charter… ” 

Further to the above, a joint statement by freedom of expression rapporteurs around the world also declared that, “Criminal defamation is not a justifiable restriction on freedom of expression; all criminal defamation laws should be abolished and replaced, where necessary, with appropriate civil defamation laws.” 

Do politicians and members of the public ever take a moment to check why there is a consistent global appeal for the defense and safety of journalists? Journalists and all those engaged in acts of journalism are, at best, public interest agents.

In other words, journalists act on behalf of the community, the society and even the government whether it feels offended or comfortable by their work. Unavoidably, journalists formed the bedrock for democratic development regardless of the misgivings. 

Journalism is here to stay; the onus is on us to make it better. 

It needs to be stated here that the repeal of criminal libel will not merely benefit the media, but also political and civil society activists. It benefits prosecutors of the media, it benefits even those who are lawmakers and the rest of those in society who maybe be worried about “giving the media more freedom.

”I dare say it also benefits judges. Repeal of criminal libel would reinforce and guarantee citizens’ rights to freedom of information under the Constitution of Liberia. This reform is also in the political interest of the current government, and all future Liberian governments. 

I commend the President for submitting the bill, but that’s not enough. She must join the lobby to have the lawmakers act upon it. I should also challenge civil society organizations, political activists, student leaders, human rights activists and all those interested in an open society to impress upon the legislators to please repeal criminal defamation. 

Peter Quaqua, Contributing Writer 

President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf,

You became the second African leader to sign onto the Declaration of Table Mountain (DTM), when you did so in Monrovia on July 21, 2012.

The Declaration calls for the abolition of “Insult Laws, Criminal Defamation and all other laws that restrict press freedom.”

By affixing your signature on the document, you committed Liberia to repealing all such unfriendly and repressive laws on the books that limit the performance of the press and inhibit free expression.

That signing ceremony came only two years after the Country made history as the first in West Africa to enact a freedom of information law.

Since the July 21, 2012 signing of the DTM, madam President you have made repeated commitments to submitting a bill to the Legislature to decriminalize defamation, but we are yet to hear that a bill has been submitted to the effect.

And it looks like we are now racing against time to register this important milestone in your legacy.

Madam President, you were on point just last year when you called on the media to stop criticizing and join efforts to make good your commitment on this very significant instrument.

While admitting that it has taken too long a time, you implored media representatives and civil society organizations to join you complete the process as quickly as possible.

Admittedly, the media had been criticizing because the media has always been anxious to see you fulfill this commitment on behalf of our country.

But the media has been involved with various stakeholders’ engagements to get a draft ready for submission to the legislature.

We are aware that the Media Law Reform Working Group has since February 2017 completed a draft and submitted to your office for review and onward submission to the Legislature, for the repeal of “Criminal Libel against the President”, “Sedition” and “Criminal Malevolence” as found in Sections 11.11, 11.2 and 11.14 of the Penal Law of 1978.

Madam President, we are concerned that your commitment to elevate our claims to free expression by repealing these laws, is now hanging in the balance with your days in office fast fading.

By abolishing criminal defamation, our country would have repositioned itself as a leader for freedom and democratic development not only in West Africa, but the whole of Africa.

This is too good a milestone to ignore because our country would have made a strong statement for our support for other regional and international instruments to which Liberia is a signatory aside from the Declaration of Table Mountain.

Certainly, the time is running out on this important reform agenda that should serve as one of the guarantors of the sustenance of peace and democracy in our dear country. 

Please do something!  

Peter Quaqua, Former President/Press Union of Liberia

Monrovia – The President of the West African Journalists Association has warned against the misuse of social media by media practitioners in Liberia and other places around the world.

Report by Willie N. Tokpah  – willie.tokpah@frontpageafricaonline.com

Peter Quaqua said instead of using social media to propagate news related items, journalists are joining other users of social websites to propagate messages that would question their profession.

Speaking in Congo Town over the weekend at the 2nd commencement convocation of the Peter Quaqua School of Journalism (PQSJ), he said most of the negative messages are propagated by individuals whose intent is to achieve a particular gain.

According to him, Facebook would soon become irrelevant if journalists do not be mindful in disseminating information across Liberia.

“Social media is a very important news outlet and people are using it for news but we have begun misusing Facebook and those of us journalists who depend on Facebook to disseminate our information beyond the limit of our country; if we don’t take care, we will make it irrelevant,” Mr. Quaqua intoned.

He indicated that the onus is upon professional journalists to fight against fake news by using similar social media sites to challenge false information disseminated by those who are not trained in the profession.

Forty Five students graduated from the Peter Quaqua School of Journalism in diverse media related disciplines.

He asserted that government in some African countries are now regulating social media as a result of being misused by citizens, noting that Liberia may experience same if Facebook and other social websites are continued to be misused.

The WAJA President warned the PQSJ graduates to be mindful of challenges the media is faced with in Liberia, especially during election periods.

This, according to him, is as a result of most media outlet across the country being owned by politicians which are posing difficulties for independent practices by journalists.

“Everybody say you must be careful especially during elections because there will be challenges in the elections that you must be careful of. I do accept and agree with those points that you hear.”

“But I also like to inform you that we are in an environment in which the ownership of the media is controlled by people who are politicians.”