Judicial Contempt vs. Free Speech: Striking the Right Balance

By Julius T. Jaesen, II
coyies2004@gmail.com
+231886661061/+231777661061

Any opinion expressed by the Supreme Court, which categorises speech intended to “ridicule and malign the Court, bring it to public disrepute and undermine public confidence in the integrity of the court” as contempt, brings to my attention serious concerns regarding the balance between judicial authority and the fundamental right to free speech. Whilst I hold no doubt that the judiciary must protect its integrity to function effectively, however, I also hold a strong view that the decision to equate public critique with contempt risks undermining democratic principles, particularly the rights to freedom of speech and expression.

The right to criticise judicial decisions is a cornerstone of democratic governance. Unlike in authoritarian regimes, in liberal democracies, the judiciary, like other branches of government, is subject to public scrutiny. The premise that judicial authority is derived from the people calls attention to the need for transparency and accountability within the judiciary itself. Thus, citizens must be able to openly discuss, critique, and question court’s decisions without fear of retribution.

International human rights frameworks, such as Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Liberia has ratified, protect the right to freedom of expression. This includes the right to impart information and ideas of all kinds, including political discourse and commentary on public institutions. By equating critical speech with contempt, the Supreme Court risks infringing upon these internationally recognised rights and setting a dangerous precedent that could stifle free expression.

Public critique serves as a mechanism for ensuring that all public institutions, including the judiciary, remain accountable to the people they serve. Supreme Courts, even though considered as the last arbiters of justice, are not infallible or pious; their decisions can have profound and far-reaching consequences on democratic governance. When a court’s decision is perceived as unjust or flawed, public discourse allows for the airing of dissenting opinions, criticisms, critiques, and the promotion of reforms that may be necessary to rectify systemic issues.

The concept of contempt should be narrowly defined to address actions that genuinely disrupt the administration of justice, such as disobeying court orders or interfering with ongoing proceedings. However, labeling public critique as contempt conflates the role of the judiciary as an interpreter of the law with that of an untouchable authority, beyond the reach of public discourse.

The history of jurisprudence globally provides numerous examples where judicial decisions have been critiqued and criticised, leading to legal reforms and the evolution of more just systems. In the United States where most of our receptive statues are derived, for example, landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) were preceded by widespread public debate and critique of the judiciary’s earlier stance on segregation. Such critiques are critical for the evolution of legal norms and the protection of human rights.

In the context of Liberia, a young democracy with a history of authoritarianism, it is especially crucial that the judiciary does not adopt a stance that could be perceived as suppressing dissent or returning to a culture of fear and silence. Encouraging open debate and critique of judicial decisions is essential for building a robust and resilient democratic society.

While the judiciary must protect its integrity, it must also be open to public scrutiny and critique, which are critical for maintaining public confidence in the justice system. A court that silences critique risks alienating the very public it seeks to serve and undermines the democratic principles upon which the judiciary itself is founded.

The principle that the judiciary is accountable to the people demands that citizens retain the right to openly discuss and critique court decisions. Any attempt to silence this right under the guise of contempt must be viewed with caution, as it poses a threat to both the rule of law and the democratic fabric of our nation.