James T. Brooks
MONROVIA – The Liberia Telecommunications Authority (LTA) has fined Orange Liberia four million Liberian dollars and ordered the mobile operator to disclose the identities of an employee and an unknown individual who fraudulently took possession of a customer’s SIM card. Legal experts are calling the landmark ruling a major step forward, though many argue the financial penalty is insufficient to address severe breaches of consumer data privacy.
The LTA Board of Commissioners, chaired by Clarence K. Massaquoi, endorsed the findings of an investigative committee on May 13, 2026. This endorsement formally constitutes the authority’s final decision in the case of Zelah Johnson against Orange Liberia, resolving a complex complaint that stretched on for more than two years before reaching a conclusion.
The committee determined that Orange failed its duty of care under the Telecommunications Act of 2007. Consequently, the regulator ordered the company to pay L$2 million for two counts of breaching security measures by accessing Johnson’s network data for a dishonest purpose, and an additional L$2 million for two counts of intercepting her communications through unauthorized technical means.
The ordeal began on February 7, 2024, between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. while Johnson was attending class and her Orange network connection suddenly went dead. Assuming it was a temporary glitch, she waited until the next morning to visit an Orange office. To her alarm, customer service agents asked if she had personally retrieved the number the previous day.
Orange reactivated the SIM card and told her to wait 30 minutes. When service resumed, Johnson could receive regular calls, but her WhatsApp account was entirely gone. The individual who had fraudulently obtained her SIM card had already used it to lock her out of the messaging platform. Orange technicians worked for days to restore her access but failed. Approximately 10 days later, Johnson claims the number was blocked a second time, though Orange disputes this secondary claim.
Unable to get a response from Orange after writing the company to seek redress, Johnson hired an attorney. A legal conference was eventually convened at Beyond Law Chambers on June 18, 2025. During those proceedings, Orange admitted that her number had been given to an unauthorized person without her knowledge or consent.
The telecom company produced Vivian Tarlue, the employee whose terminal was used for the fraudulent issuance. Tarlue testified that she had left her workstation and login credentials with a male colleague, who then carried out the transaction. Orange did not contest this account but noted that it directly violated company policy. Orange subsequently terminated Tarlue, but the male employee’s identity was never publicly disclosed.
For Johnson, the termination of one employee while the other remains unnamed, combined with the fact that the unauthorized recipient of her SIM card is still unidentified, leaves her exposed to digital dangers she cannot fully assess. She expressed that, because the process took over two years, she remains deeply worried that anyone who had access to her WhatsApp could use her personal information against her in the future.
Johnson’s attorney, Cllr. Moriah Yeakula-Korkpor welcomed the LTA’s intervention but remained measured in her praise, calling the financial penalty disproportionately low given the gravity of the violation. She argued that the fine feels far too low compared to the magnitude of the offense, noting it is frightening for consumers when the fundamental security of phone ownership can be compromised so intentionally.
The attorney argued that penalties should reflect the full weight of privacy breaches and questioned whether current Liberian law is adequate to address modern digital offenses. She raised the need for reforms regarding penalties, suggesting that compensation should also be directed toward the victim rather than just the government. Moving forward, she and her client plan to discuss next steps to ensure Johnson receives adequate relief for the emotional distress and agony endured over the past two years.
Despite the low fine, Cllr. Yeakula-Korkpor credited the LTA for seeing the investigation through to a conclusion, expressing hope that the ruling would serve as a strict deterrent so that telecommunications companies can no longer handle user data with impunity.
The LTA’s investigative committee was composed of five members, including Cllr. Phil Tarpeh Dixon of AOL and four officers from the Governance and Consumer Affairs division. The panel firmly rejected Orange’s central argument that simply reactivating Johnson’s number had effectively resolved the matter.
The committee’s official report found that Orange’s acknowledgment of the error fell far short of the full disclosure required by law. Under Section 49(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 2007, customers possess a legal right to review service provider records regarding their personal accounts. The committee ruled that Orange should have provided Johnson with a complete log of all activity on her number during the period it was out of her possession, including all calls, text messages, and mobile money transactions.
Furthermore, the report invoked Section 76 of the Telecommunications Act, which prohibits intentionally accessing a network or intercepting communications with dishonest intent. It also cited Chapter 51, which holds service providers corporately liable for the actions of their agents. The committee emphasized that the involvement of Orange staff acting on the entity’s business creates corporate liability that Orange cannot extinguish merely by taking administrative or disciplinary action against its personnel. The committee further determined that Orange’s operating license expressly provides for financial penalties for violations of license terms, LTA regulations, and the broader laws of Liberia.
In addition to the financial penalty, the LTA ordered Orange to disclose the identity of the staff member who issued Johnson’s SIM to the unauthorized individual, alongside the identity of the external person or persons who wrongfully took possession of the number.
Johnson had filed her formal complaint with the LTA on October 20, 2025, after direct resolution efforts with Orange failed. The regulatory authority originally convened the parties in February 2026, giving them two weeks to reach a settlement. The LTA reconvened the case after Orange requested an extension, but both parties ultimately reported that mediation had failed.
Johnson’s lawyer emphasized that her client’s fear of future blackmail remains a real, unresolved threat. Because an unknown individual held her digital identity and private communications for a period of time, the sense of vulnerability persists, underscoring the severe consequences of leaving consumer data unprotected.