Former PUL Leaders Demand Border Probe-Push for Press Freedom, Reject KAK Rollback

At a time when Liberia is grappling with rising border tensions and growing public unease, a new front of concern is emerging—one that cuts to the heart of democratic governance, transparency, and the future of free expression in the country. What began as a security issue along the Guinea frontier is now intersecting with deeper anxieties about information control and legislative intent. THE ANALYST reports, the former leaders of the Press Union of Liberia have issued a strongly worded statement, simultaneously calling for an independent probe into the border crisis and warning against what they describe as a dangerous attempt to weaken hard-won press freedom protections under the Kamara Abdullah Kamara Act.

A group of former leaders of the Press Union of Liberia (PUL) has issued a forceful and far-reaching statement addressing two of the most sensitive issues confronting the country today: the unfolding Liberia–Guinea border crisis and what they describe as an emerging threat to press freedom.

In the statement released March 19, 2026, from Philadelphia, Isaac D.E. Bantu, Emmanuel D. Abalo, and Gabriel I.H. Williams—each a former leader of the PUL—praised President Joseph Nyuma Boakai for pursuing diplomatic engagement to defuse tensions with Guinea, particularly his recent participation in high-level Mano River Union discussions.

But beyond that commendation, the tone quickly shifted.

The former PUL leaders raised alarm over what they described as the Government’s failure to adequately inform the Liberian public about the true nature and extent of the border situation—an omission they warned is fueling uncertainty, speculation, and public anxiety.

According to the statement, the crisis reportedly began in early March when Guinean troops crossed into what is internationally recognized as Liberian territory and occupied parts of the border region.

Despite the seriousness of that development, the group argued, the Government has not provided clear, consistent, and sufficient information to the public.

“The absence of adequate government information… has led to widespread rumors, especially on social media,” the statement noted, warning that such conditions could destabilize an already fragile post-war society.

The critique goes deeper than the border itself.

The former PUL leaders identified what they described as a broader and persistent weakness within the Boakai administration: ineffective communication with the Liberian people.

They argued that the Government has struggled not only to explain the border crisis, but also to effectively communicate its broader achievements and policy directions—creating a widening gap between state actions and public understanding.

In response, they called for a full investigation into reports of illegal mineral mining activities along the border—activities they suggest may have contributed to the Guinean military presence in the disputed area.

More pointedly, they urged the President to dismiss any government officials found to be complicit in such activities, framing the issue not just as a security concern, but as a matter of accountability and sovereignty.

Yet it is on the issue of press freedom that the statement takes its most uncompromising stance.

The former PUL leaders categorically rejected what they described as an attempt to amend the Kamara Abdullah Kamara (KAK) Act—a landmark 2019 law that decriminalized libel, sedition, and other speech-related offenses in Liberia.

The proposed amendment, reportedly introduced under the title “Protection from Gender-Based Online Abuse and Harassment Act of 2026,” is described by the group as a dangerous legislative maneuver that could reintroduce criminal penalties for speech.

Under the proposal, speech deemed “insulting,” “obscene,” or “harassing” on digital platforms could attract prison terms of up to two years, along with significant fines.

“That is not a minor adjustment,” the statement warned. “It is a dangerous rollback of hard-won protections for free expression in Liberia.”

The group aligned itself firmly with the current leadership of the Press Union of Liberia, particularly its President Julius Kanubah, who has publicly cautioned lawmakers against undermining the spirit of the KAK Act.

They also echoed the position of former PUL President Peter Quaqua, who has argued that the original intent of the KAK Act was to eliminate criminal sanctions for speech—not to reintroduce them through indirect legislative pathways.

Importantly, the former PUL leaders made clear that their opposition to the amendment does not equate to support for online abuse.

“We reject online abuse. We reject misogyny. We reject targeted harassment,” the statement emphasized.

However, they argued that vague and punitive laws risk being weaponized—not only against abusers, but against journalists, critics, activists, and ordinary citizens expressing dissenting views.

In their view, Liberia already possesses adequate legal frameworks to address harmful conduct, including provisions within the Penal Law and the pending Cybercrime Act, without undermining press freedom.

The timing of the proposed amendment, they suggested, is particularly troubling.

They pointed to recent developments, including the Supreme Court’s imprisonment of social media commentator Justin Oldpa Yeazehn—widely known as Prophet Key—for contempt, as well as reported tensions involving journalists and the judiciary in Rivercess County.

Taken together, these incidents, they argue, point to a pattern of increasing pressure on free expression in Liberia.

“Liberia should be strengthening the democratic gains made since passage of the KAK Act, not retreating from them,” the statement asserted.

The group warned that once the state begins criminalizing broad categories of speech, the scope of enforcement could expand beyond abusive content to include legitimate criticism and investigative journalism.

“The press does not exist to flatter those in authority,” the statement declared. “Free speech does not exist only for comfortable opinions.”

In a direct appeal to national institutions, the former PUL leaders called on the House of Representatives to reject any amendment that dilutes the KAK Act, the Senate to oppose any attempt to restore criminal liability for speech, and the Executive to refuse assent to any such measure.

They also urged civil society organizations, legal professionals, student groups, and democracy advocates to join in resisting what they described as a dangerous legislative path.

Their final message was unambiguous—and carries echoes of Liberia’s recent democratic history:

“Speech must not become a crime again in Liberia.”