The Arrest of Jewel Howard-Taylor and a Warning for a Nation That Knows the Cost of Politicized Power
By Clarence R. Pearson, Sr., PhD
There is a phrase increasingly heard in Liberia whenever a politically prominent person is arrested, investigated or accused of wrongdoing: “Let the person face the law and exonerate themselves.”
Sometimes it becomes, “The law is the law.”
At other times, “Let the person go through the process.”
The formulations differ, but the underlying argument is often the same: once the state invokes the law, questioning the manner in which it exercises its power is somehow equivalent to opposing justice.
That proposition should trouble every Liberian who believes in the rule of law.
No one is above the law—not a former vice president, not a senator, not a minister, not a police chief, not a political party leader, and certainly not an ordinary citizen. If credible evidence implicates a person in narcotics trafficking, money laundering, conspiracy or any other serious crime, the state has both the authority and the responsibility to investigate and, when the applicable legal threshold is satisfied, prosecute.
But there is another principle of equal importance:
The government is not above the law either.
And that is why the arrest of former Vice President Jewel Howard-Taylor deserves scrutiny that goes considerably deeper than the comforting refrain, “Let the law take its course.”
The Question Is Not Whether She Can Be Arrested
Howard-Taylor, who served as Liberia’s vice president from 2018 to 2024, was stopped on August 19 while attempting to leave Liberia through Roberts International Airport and was taken to Liberia National Police headquarters. Authorities subsequently announced serious charges against her, including drug trafficking, money laundering and conspiracy in connection with an alleged transnational narcotics network. International reporting has confirmed the arrest and charges.
The government has publicly portrayed its evidence as substantial. Police Inspector General Gregory O. W. Coleman reportedly said investigators had reached a point at which they believed they possessed sufficient evidence and did not need first to interview Howard-Taylor. He further indicated that authorities learned of her intended travel and acted to prevent her departure. Attorney General and Justice Minister N. Oswald Tweh has said that the case would proceed to a grand jury for indictment.
Those statements raise an important question—not necessarily about whether the police possessed legal authority to act, but about how that authority was exercised.
The distinction matters.
Police may, under circumstances permitted by law, make an arrest based upon probable cause without first obtaining an arrest warrant. The absence of a warrant therefore does not, standing alone, establish that an arrest was unlawful.
Nor must prosecutors necessarily obtain a grand-jury indictment before every lawful arrest.
But saying that government can exercise a power does not end the inquiry into whether it exercised that power wisely, proportionately and professionally.
If the Evidence Was Already So Strong, Why the Airport Spectacle?
That is the question Liberia’s authorities should answer clearly.
If investigators had been monitoring Howard-Taylor; if they possessed what they characterized publicly as sufficient or overwhelming evidence; and if authorities became aware that she intended to travel, then why—assuming circumstances permitted it—was judicial process not sought before the confrontation at the airport?
Why not place the preliminary evidence before a neutral judicial officer and seek an arrest warrant?
And if investigators believed their completed evidentiary package was already sufficiently developed for prosecution, why was the matter not first presented to a grand jury for consideration of an indictment, if that procedural course was legally and practically available?
These questions do not establish that the arrest was illegal.
They establish something different: that the government should explain why it chose the most abrupt exercise of police power when less publicly damaging mechanisms of lawful compulsion may have been available.
That distinction is especially important because this was not an unknown suspect discovered unexpectedly crossing a border.
Howard-Taylor is a former vice president of the Republic of Liberia, a former senator and a nationally recognizable political figure. She was not entitled to immunity from criminal investigation merely because she once occupied high office. But precisely because of her political prominence, law-enforcement authorities should have understood that virtually every aspect of their conduct would be examined for evidence of professionalism, impartiality and political motivation.
The higher the political temperature, the greater the institutional discipline required.
Probable Cause Is a Floor, Not a Standard of Statesmanship
Law enforcement must be careful not to confuse the existence of legal authority with the quality of its exercise.
An arrest can conceivably satisfy the minimum requirements of criminal procedure and still be executed in a manner that unnecessarily damages institutional credibility.
A government confident in its evidence should ordinarily have little to fear from judicial scrutiny. Indeed, obtaining prior judicial authorization where feasible can strengthen rather than weaken a politically sensitive prosecution. A warrant issued after independent review allows the state to say something important to the public:
We did not simply decide among ourselves that this person should be arrested. We presented our evidence to an independent judicial authority, and that authority determined that the legal threshold had been satisfied.
Likewise, where indictment by a grand jury is available and appropriate, presenting evidence through that institution can provide another layer between investigators and the immense coercive machinery of the state.
None of this means that a warrant or prior indictment is invariably required before police may lawfully arrest a suspect.
It means that legality represents the beginning of the inquiry, not necessarily its end.
Professionalism matters.
Proportionality matters.
Institutional restraint matters.
And in a politically polarized society, appearances of impartiality matter because public confidence is itself an indispensable asset of criminal justice.
“Let Her Exonerate Herself” Gets the Law Backwards
There is an even more fundamental problem with the language surrounding politically charged prosecutions.
An accused person does not enter a criminal courtroom carrying a legal obligation to prove innocence.
The state carries the burden of proving guilt.
That distinction is not semantic. It is one of the great protections separating constitutional government from arbitrary power.
The proper democratic formulation is therefore not:
“Let Jewel Howard-Taylor face the law and exonerate herself.”
It is:
Let the government present admissible evidence before an independent court and prove the allegations against Jewel Howard-Taylor according to law, while affording her every protection guaranteed to an accused person.
If the evidence is compelling, prosecute the case vigorously.
If it proves guilt beyond the legally required standard, impose the punishment prescribed by law.
But until then, accusation is not conviction, police confidence is not judicial proof, and a government press conference is not a verdict.
Process Can Itself Become Punishment
This principle extends far beyond Howard-Taylor.
A state does not need to secure a conviction to inflict enormous damage upon a political opponent.
An arrest can dominate newspapers.
Images can travel internationally within minutes.
A person’s name can become permanently associated with narcotics, corruption or organized crime long before a witness takes the stand.
Legal fees accumulate. Political organizations become destabilized. Families suffer. International reputations collapse. Supporters and opponents retreat into hardened camps.
Years later, an acquittal may occupy a fraction of the attention generated by the original accusation.
That is why democratic societies impose restrictions upon prosecutorial and police power.
Due process is not designed merely to protect guilty people from punishment.
It exists to prevent government from substituting accusation for proof and procedure for punishment.
Liberia Has Special Reasons to Be Careful
For Liberia, these principles carry historical weight.
This is a country whose political history has repeatedly demonstrated what happens when institutions lose credibility, when political disagreement becomes personalized, when state power is perceived as partisan, and when citizens cease believing that public institutions operate according to neutral rules.
Liberia’s civil conflicts did not arise from a single arrest or prosecution, and it would be irresponsible to suggest otherwise. But the country’s history should make its leaders particularly sensitive to the cumulative consequences of institutional distrust.
Peace is not preserved merely by preventing gunfire.
It is strengthened when citizens—including citizens who oppose the government—believe that the police will treat them fairly, prosecutors will follow evidence rather than political instructions, courts will remain independent, and political prominence will provide neither immunity nor a target on one’s back.
That is why the Howard-Taylor prosecution is larger than Jewel Howard-Taylor.
It is becoming a test of Liberia’s institutions.
The Government Can Answer the Doubts With Evidence
There is a straightforward way for the Boakai administration, the Ministry of Justice and the Liberia National Police to reduce legitimate suspicion:
Build the case in court.
Not principally through press conferences.
Not through political surrogates.
Not through partisan social-media warfare.
And certainly not through declarations that the public should simply trust investigators because “the law is the law.”
Present the evidence.
Establish the evidentiary chain.
Identify the alleged acts.
Demonstrate the alleged connections.
Protect witnesses.
Preserve physical and digital evidence.
Respect defense counsel.
Meet every procedural deadline.
Permit independent judicial scrutiny.
And ultimately prove the allegations to the standard demanded by law.
If the evidence against Howard-Taylor is indeed overwhelming, rigorous judicial scrutiny should strengthen the government’s case rather than threaten it.
One Standard for Everyone
Liberians should reject two equally dangerous propositions.
The first is that Jewel Howard-Taylor’s former office or political influence should protect her from legitimate criminal investigation. It should not.
The second is that because police have accused her of exceptionally serious crimes, Liberians should suspend critical examination of how the government investigated, arrested, detained and intends to prosecute her.
They should not.
A mature democracy can hold both principles simultaneously.
No political immunity from prosecution.
No governmental immunity from scrutiny.
Those principles belong together.
And perhaps the most dangerous cliché in a fragile democracy is the suggestion that citizens must choose between supporting law enforcement and questioning law enforcement.
They do not.
Citizens strengthen institutions by demanding that they perform their functions lawfully, professionally and impartially.
Liberia should prosecute narcotics trafficking relentlessly. The scale of recent cocaine seizures and the possibility of penetration of state institutions demand nothing less. But the more serious the alleged crime, and the more politically consequential the accused, the more meticulous the government must become—not less.
The Howard-Taylor case therefore presents Liberia with an opportunity.
The government can demonstrate that a former vice president is not above the law.
But it must demonstrate something else at the same time:
that the police are not above scrutiny, prosecutors are not above due process, political power is not a substitute for judicial authority, and an accusation—however sensational—will never be permitted to become a conviction before the evidence reaches a courtroom.
For a nation that has paid an extraordinary price for political mistrust, that distinction is not legal technicality.
It is part of the architecture of peace.
