By Joseph Turay
In theory, cybersecurity laws exist to protect citizens, institutions, and national infrastructure from digital harm. In practice, when such laws are vaguely written, politically controlled, or unevenly enforced, they can become powerful tools for silencing dissent — particularly journalism that challenges corruption, criminal networks, and political power.
In Sierra Leone, this tension between security and freedom has moved from abstract legal debate to lived reality. What media stakeholders warned against in 2021 — through a detailed position paper by the Sierra Leone Association of Journalists (SLAJ) and the Media Reform Coordinating Group (MRCG) — has increasingly materialised in arrests, interrogations, surveillance, and exile.
The case of Joseph Turay, publisher of Public Review newspaper, and Dutch journalist Sophie van Leeuwen, arrested in February 2025 while investigating corruption and alleged cocaine trafficking networks, illustrates why many journalists now fear that cyber-related laws and policing practices are being deployed not merely to fight crime, but to suppress scrutiny.
On 29 March 2021, SLAJ and MRCG convened a consultative meeting in Freetown bringing together journalists’ unions, editors, academics, regulators, civil society organisations, and government representatives. The meeting followed Parliament’s instruction for further engagement on the Cybercrime Bill, 2020, then under debate.
The media stakeholders were clear: they supported legislation that protects cyberspace, combats cybercrime, and fulfils international obligations. However, they warned that several provisions of the bill — if enacted without reform — posed serious risks to freedom of expression, investigative journalism, and democratic accountability.
And Concerns highlighted included:
Over-criminalisation of online speech, Vague and undefined legal terms, Excessive ministerial powers, Weak safeguards against surveillance and data interception, Lack of protection for journalistic sources.
For example, Section 35, which criminalises messages deemed “grossly offensive,” “indecent,” or intended to cause annoyance, became particularly contentious. For journalists reporting on corruption, drug trafficking, or abuse of power, the subjective nature of these terms exposes them to arbitrary criminalisation.
Provisions allowing real-time monitoring of communications, data interception, and compelled secrecy by service providers further threaten source confidentiality — the lifeblood of investigative journalism. In such an environment, whistleblowers may refuse to speak, and critical reporting diminishes.
The arrests of Turay and van Leeuwen are symptomatic of a wider pattern. Cybersecurity laws, coupled with broad ministerial powers, are increasingly applied to silence journalists reporting on politically sensitive issues. Investigative coverage of cocaine trafficking, particularly linked to Jos — a notorious drug lord whose continued presence in Sierra Leone has raised serious concerns — has made reporters prime targets.
Beyond Turay and van Leeuwen, other journalists have faced harassment, office raids, interrogation, and brief detention while investigating Jos’s networks or alleged state complicity in shielding his operations. Equipment seizures and surveillance have become frequent, creating a pervasive climate of fear. Sources often refuse to come forward, knowing that their communications may be monitored and that journalists could face criminal charges merely for reporting verified information.
Jos’s continued operations in Sierra Leone demonstrate the consequences of selective enforcement. Despite international scrutiny and repeated reporting on his alleged cocaine networks, law enforcement has largely failed to act decisively. For journalists, this reinforces the danger of pursuing stories about powerful actors: exposure risks legal retaliation, while the subjects of reporting operate with impunity.
The cumulative effect is self-censorship. Many reporters now avoid covering drug trafficking, corruption, or potential links between officials and criminal networks, undermining transparency and public accountability. The chilling effect extends not only to local media but also to foreign correspondents, as van Leeuwen’s detention underscores.
To safeguard journalism and ensure accountability, Sierra Leone must; Reform the Cybercrime Act to clearly define offences and remove provisions that criminalise legitimate journalistic work, Establish judicial oversight for surveillance and digital data access, Provide explicit protections for investigative journalists, whistleblowers, and confidential sources, Investigate and prosecute drug-related crimes impartially, ensuring individuals like Jos cannot operate with state protection, Engage with international media freedom organisations to align domestic law with global standards on freedom of expression.
And therefore; Sierra Leone stands at a crossroads. The combination of broadly written cybersecurity laws, repeated arrests and detentions, and the continued impunity of high-profile criminals like Jos has created an environment where investigative journalism is increasingly risky. Without urgent legal reform and enforcement of accountability, the state risks normalising repression, shielding criminal networks, and eroding public trust in both the media and government institutions.
Protecting journalists is not just a matter of principle; it is essential for democracy, transparency, and the fight against corruption and illicit drug trafficking. Until these protections are assured, freedom of expression in Sierra Leone will remain under threat, and the voices exposing wrongdoing will continue to face the choice between silence and exile.
