By Amos Harris
Justice Minister Cllr. Oswald Tweh recently issued a stark warning to the Liberian public: anyone utilizing social media to post statements capable of exacerbating tensions or endangering lives and property amidst the ongoing situation with Guinea will face immediate arrest. While the directive aims to safeguard national security, the government’s subsequent handling of two high-profile cases has sparked intense debate regarding fairness, consistency, and the specter of selective justice.
Two prominent figures, Joshua Milton Blayee, widely known as “General Butt Naked,” and Representative Yekeh Kolubah, openly challenged the minister’s directive. Both individuals released public statements on social media that carried the potential to escalate regional tensions and threaten domestic stability. Despite the visibility of these actions—occurring in the very digital spaces the minister highlighted—the government’s response has been markedly inconsistent.
While authorities appeared to ignore Blayee’s posts entirely, offering no official reprimand or action, Kolubah faced severe and widespread condemnation. Criticism against the lawmaker emanated from nearly every branch of government, creating a stark disparity in treatment that has fueled public allegations of political bias within state institutions.
Observers suggest that this difference in treatment may be linked to the individuals’ public profiles and perceived allegiances. Blayee is closely associated with The Rescue Train Securities, a group with significant recognition across the country, whereas Kolubah has a long-standing history of being a fierce critic of sitting administrations, including those he previously supported. Critics argue that this selective targeting reflects a degree of hypocrisy that undermines the government’s claims of institutional impartiality.
Civic analysts emphasize that the core issue is not one of personal grievance, but of governance and systemic accountability. One observer noted that applying rules selectively based on loyalty or influence erodes public trust, maintaining that all citizens deserve equal protection and application of the law regardless of their political stance.
The situation further highlights the precarious position of opposition voices in Liberia. Government officials frequently dismiss dissent as purely politically motivated, yet opposition members remain citizens subject to the same legal standards as any other Liberian. Experts warn that such unequal enforcement undermines democratic principles and risks deepening national divisions at a time when unity is essential for navigating regional complexities.
As a nation divided against itself cannot stand, civic leaders are underscoring the necessity of fairness and cohesion for long-term social stability. There are growing calls for the government to adopt a transparent and consistent approach to social media enforcement. Advocates argue that demonstrating impartiality is both a legal and moral imperative, strengthening public trust and safeguarding the nation.
As Liberia navigates these sensitive regional and domestic challenges, the public expectation remains clear: the government must address perceived inequities. Fairness, consistency, and a demonstrated respect for the rights of all citizens are essential components for effective governance and the sustained stability of the country.