Published: February 16, 2026
MONROVIA, Liberia — The People’s Power Movement (PPM) has condemned the vulgar language used by jailed social media commentator Justine Oldpa Yeazeahn, commonly known as “Prophet Key,” but argues that the Supreme Court’s six-month contempt sentence was legally flawed and improperly applied.
In a statement issued Monday, the pro-democracy political movement described Prophet Key’s remarks as “un-African, un-Liberian, un-cultured, and uncivilized,” yet maintained that the contempt case “was not and should have never been between ‘Prophet Key’ versus ‘The Supreme Court.’”
The Supreme Court on Feb. 13 sentenced Prophet Key to six months in prison after finding him guilty of contempt of court. The ruling followed his appearance before the Full Bench a day earlier, during which he admitted guilt and pleaded with the justices to temper justice with mercy.
The case has sparked widespread debate across political, religious and civil society communities.
Speech vs. Criminal Contempt
While distancing itself from Prophet Key’s style of communication, the PPM emphasized that vulgarity should not automatically translate into criminal prosecution.
“We note his genuine quest for mercy, while promising not to indulge in such an act anymore before he was sentenced to 6 months in prison,” the statement said.
“While we do not support vulgarity of any kind, it is important to note that the ‘contempt’ case was not and should have never been between ‘Prophet Key’ versus ‘The Supreme Court,’” the statement added. “Prophet Key did not refer to or attack the Supreme Court. He said, ‘…The Chief Justice Yamie Gbeisay is corrupt…’ while using foul language.”
The movement argued that the matter should have been treated as a civil issue rather than a criminal offense, citing the Kamara Abdullah Kamara (KAK) Act of 2019, which repealed Chapter 11 of the 1978 Penal Law and decriminalized speech offenses, including insults.
The PPM also reminded the court that Liberia is a signatory to the 2012 Declaration of Table Mountain, which calls on African nations to abolish criminal defamation and insult laws.
According to the movement, the application of “criminal contempt” under Section 12.5 of the 1972 Judiciary Law should not have been used for what it described as an alleged speech offense.
Call for Recusal
The PPM further contended that Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay Sr. should have recused himself from the case.
The movement argued that because the chief justice was personally referenced in the alleged contempt, he had a valid legal basis to step aside.
It cited Judicial Canon Twenty-Eight of Liberia’s Judicial Canons and Ethical Rules, which states: “A judge should abstain from performing or taking part in any judicial act in which his personal interests are involved or in which he has personal litigation…”
“The Chief Justice also violated a common principle in Law called ‘Nemo Judex in Causa Sua,’ which states ‘a judge who is a party to case is not qualified to preside over such a matter,’” the movement said.
“In this light, the People’s Power Movement notes that this serious procedural and ethical infraction/breach on the part of the Supreme Court violates the rights of ‘Prophet Key’ to due process including a Court free from bias.”
Did the Action Meet Legal Threshold?
The PPM pointed to Section 12.5 of the Judiciary Law, which outlines five specific conditions under which a court may hold someone in contempt, including disruption of proceedings, breach of peace, willful disobedience of lawful mandates, refusal to testify or publication of false reports of court proceedings.
“Now, did the action of ‘Prophet Key’ fall within any of these categories or parameters? Did Prophet Key disrupt the Court’s proceedings? Did he breach the peace intended to directly interrupt the Court’s proceedings? Did he resist any lawful mandate or summon by the Court? Did he refuse to be sworn as a witness? Did he publish any false report about the Court’s proceedings?” the statement asked.
“After a thorough review, the PPM concludes that the action of ‘Prophet Key’ did not satisfy any element deserving of Contempt of Court.”
The movement added that it views the ruling as an example of the court exercising excessive authority.
Questioning the Six-Month Sentence
The PPM also challenged the severity of the punishment, citing Section 12.6 of the Judiciary Law, which provides that criminal contempt in the Supreme Court may be punished by a fine not exceeding $300 or imprisonment not exceeding 30 days.
“Thirty (30) days is 1 month and not 6 months. So, why did the Court send ‘Prophet Key’ to jail for 6 months when the law says 30 days? Is this not an abuse of power (e.g., judicial overreach)?” the movement asked.
According to the PPM, judicial discretion in contempt cases before the Supreme Court must fall within the statutory limit of one to 30 days.
“The People’s Power Movement (PPM) wants to reemphasize the principles of fairness and justice for all Liberians, whether the powerful or the weak.”
Balancing Decency and Due Process
While reiterating its opposition to vulgar speech, the movement called for national discourse grounded in “decency, decorum, civility, and mutual respect.”
At the same time, it maintained that due process and adherence to statutory limits must guide judicial decisions.
The controversy surrounding Prophet Key’s sentencing continues to fuel national debate over free expression, judicial authority and the limits of contempt powers in Liberia.
Discussion about this post