Journalists Face Controversial Charges-PUL Slams Court Action, Say It’s Judicial Overreach

MONROVIA – A new confrontation is emerging between the judiciary and the media, raising renewed concern about the state of press freedom and the boundaries of legal authority in Liberia. What began as a routine court summons has quickly escalated into a broader debate over whether journalists can be criminally charged for reporting on ongoing legal matters involving public interest. THE ANALYST reports that the Press Union of Liberia has strongly condemned the writ issued by the Guthrie Magisterial Court against two Trust FM journalists, describing the action as unfounded and dangerous, while warning that such proceedings risk undermining accountability, intimidating the press, and reversing gains made in protecting media freedom.

The Press Union of Liberia (PUL) has strongly condemned what it describes as a troubling judicial action against two broadcast journalists, warning that the case represents a direct threat to press freedom and public accountability in the country.

In a statement issued on March 26, 2026, the Union raised alarm over a writ of summons issued by the Guthrie Magisterial Court in Gbah Jarkel, Bomi County, targeting Trust FM journalists Mr. Varney Williams and Mr. William Kromah.

The journalists have been ordered to appear before the court on Friday, March 27, at 8:00 a.m. to answer to charges of “Criminal Libel” and “Violation of Privacy.”

The complaint was filed by Mr. Varney D. Foday, Deputy Security Director of Mano Oil Palm Company, who alleges that journalist Varney Williams took and disseminated his photograph on social media without consent and shared it with colleague William Kromah, resulting in public ridicule and reputational harm.

But for the Press Union of Liberia, the issue goes far beyond the complaint itself.

The Union has categorically rejected the charges as unfounded and has called on Associate Magistrate Jawollay G. Reed to dismiss the case without delay.

According to the PUL, the journalists were acting within their professional duty by reporting on a matter already before the courts and of clear public interest.

The Union emphasized that the subject of the report—Mr. Foday—had himself been ordered arrested by the Madina Magisterial Court in Grand Cape Mount County on serious charges, including reckless burning, criminal trespass, theft of property, and criminal conspiracy.

Those charges stem from a complaint brought by the Republic of Liberia through a private prosecutor, with proceedings currently ongoing before Stipendiary Magistrate Atty. Milton Fahnbulleh.

Given this context, the PUL argues that reporting on the case—and using images relevant to the story—falls squarely within the boundaries of responsible journalism.

“It is deeply troubling that the Court would issue such a writ against journalists who were fulfilling their duty to report accurately and responsibly,” the statement emphasized.

The Union warned that the action taken by the Guthrie Magisterial Court is not only legally questionable but also sets a dangerous precedent.

In its view, pursuing criminal charges against journalists for reporting on documented court proceedings amounts to judicial overreach and could create a chilling effect across the media landscape.

PUL President Julius Kanubah was particularly direct in his assessment.

“There is no law that prohibits journalists from taking or utilizing publicly available photographs,” he stated, adding that the attempt to criminalize such actions undermines both media practice and legal consistency.

He further argued that Mr. Foday’s position as a private security officer operating within a government-sanctioned concession area places him within the realm of public interest reporting.

In that context, the use of his image in connection with a legal case involving serious allegations cannot reasonably be construed as a violation of privacy, the Union contends.

The PUL also pointed to what it described as an inconsistency in the judicial process.

While one court is actively handling criminal charges against Mr. Foday, another court is simultaneously entertaining a case against journalists reporting on those very proceedings.

For the Union, this contradiction raises questions about coherence and proportionality within the judicial system.

More broadly, the PUL framed the issue as part of a larger struggle to protect press freedom in Liberia.

Over the years, the country has made notable progress in moving away from criminal libel laws and strengthening protections for journalists.

Actions such as the current summons, the Union warns, risk reversing those gains.

The PUL called on the Guthrie Magisterial Court to recognize the lack of legal basis for the case and to refrain from entertaining what it described as an attempt to intimidate journalists and suppress public accountability.

The Union also urged judicial authorities more broadly to remain mindful of the role of the media in a democratic society.

Journalists, it emphasized, serve as a bridge between institutions and the public, providing information that enables citizens to understand and engage with national developments.

Targeting them for performing that role, the Union argues, weakens—not strengthens—the justice system.

At the same time, the PUL reaffirmed its commitment to defending media practitioners against what it considers unlawful or unjustified legal actions.

It warned that it will continue to speak out against any form of judicial harassment targeting journalists.

For observers, the case highlights a recurring tension within Liberia’s governance framework—the balance between legal authority and freedom of expression.

While courts have the mandate to interpret and apply the law, that authority must operate within constitutional guarantees that protect free speech and press freedom.

As the journalists prepare to appear in court, the outcome of the case will likely be closely watched by media practitioners, legal experts, and civil society organizations.

Beyond the immediate legal questions, the case carries broader implications.

It raises fundamental issues about the limits of judicial power, the protection of journalistic work, and the extent to which Liberia’s democratic gains can be sustained in practice.

For now, the PUL’s message is clear.

The charges should be dropped.

And the space for responsible journalism must be protected.