12/01/2026
Public scrutiny of law-enforcement actions is both legitimate and healthy in a democracy. However, it is equally important that public commentary accurately reflects the law, investigative standards, and the constitutional boundaries within which the police operate.
1. Arrest Thresholds Are Legal, Not Political, but Case-Specific
It is correct that Liberian criminal law does not require DNA evidence as a prerequisite for arrest. The standard is reasonable suspicion or probable cause. However, this standard is fact-dependent and case-specific, not automatic or mechanical.
What constitutes reasonable suspicion may differ significantly between cases based on:
• Timeliness of reporting
• Availability and coherence of
victim statements
• Medical or physical findings
• Witness corroboration
• Risk of flight or interference
• Immediate safeguarding needs
of victims
Different outcomes at the arrest stage do not, by themselves, establish inconsistency or arbitrariness.
2. Equality Before the Law Does Not Mean Identical Outcomes
Article 11(c) of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law, but equality does not require identical procedural outcomes in dissimilar factual circumstances. The Constitution protects against discrimination, not against lawful investigative discretion exercised based on evidence, risk assessment, and prosecutorial guidance.
Two sexual-offence cases may fall under the same statutory framework yet present materially different evidentiary and operational realities.
3. Arrest Is Not a Declaration of Guilt, Nor Is Non-Arrest a Declaration of Innocence
The arrest and charging of Peter Bonor Jallah, Jr. was based on the totality of information available to investigators at that time, assessed against legal thresholds and safeguarding considerations.
Conversely, the absence of arrest in the allegation involving J. Bryant McGill does not amount to exoneration, endorsement, or dismissal of victims’ rights. Investigative decisions, including whether to arrest, release, or close a matter, are guided by evidentiary sufficiency, prosecutorial advice, and constitutional safeguards, not public pressure.
4. “Clearing” a Suspect Requires Legal Precision in Language
Public discourse must avoid conflating insufficient evidence at a given stage with permanent legal clearance. Investigations evolve. Evidence can emerge. Decisions may be revisited if new, credible information becomes available.
The LNP remains bound by law to reopen or advance investigations where legally justified without fear or favor.
5. DNA Evidence: Valuable but Not Absolutized
DNA evidence is an important investigative tool and is pursued wherever feasible. However:
• Its availability depends on
timing, consent, and forensic
viability
• Its absence does not invalidate
other lawful forms of evidence
• Its presence does not override
due-process safeguards
The law requires reasonableness, not rigidity.
6. Guarding Against the
Criminalization of Police
Judgment
While accountability is essential, it is equally dangerous to frame lawful investigative discretion as “selective policing” without demonstrating unlawful motive, discriminatory intent, or deviation from statutory authority.
Such narratives risk:
• Undermining ongoing
investigations
• Deterring victims from reporting
• Pressuring investigators to act
outside legal bounds
• Politicizing criminal-justice
processes
The Liberia National Police remains committed to:
• Equal application of the law
• Victim protection
• Professional, evidence-based
investigations
• Respect for constitutional rights
• Transparency within legal limits
Justice is not served by shortcuts, selective outrage, or public verdicts. It is served by lawful process, evidentiary rigor, and institutional restraint, even when outcomes are uncomfortable or contested.
The rule of law is strengthened not when police act identically in all cases, but when they act lawfully, independently, and without improper influence in every case.
