A court-mandated closure of Satcom Liberia’s headquarters has stirred controversy after sheriffs assigned to enforce the shutdown reportedly failed to carry out the order, raising questions about judicial authority and enforcement in Liberia.
The Commercial Court of Liberia had ordered the closure of Satcom’s Congo Town office following a Supreme Court ruling that found the company guilty of copyright infringement.
The case, filed by Consolidated Group and its CEO Simeon Freeman, accused Satcom Liberia and co-defendant K3 Telecom of illegally broadcasting exclusive sports content, including English Premier League and La Liga matches, without authorization from DSTV through MultiChoice Africa and SuperSport.
Despite the court’s directive, sheriffs posted a copy of the court order on the doors of Satcom’s office but allowed the company to continue operations—prompting legal debate and public concern.
“This kind of selective enforcement undermines the authority of the court,” said a legal analyst familiar with the case. “If sheriffs can ignore a direct order from the Supreme Court, it raises serious concerns about the rule of law.”
In its February 18 ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that Satcom knowingly violated intellectual property rights.
“The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the 1st Appellee knowingly and with impunity violated the content rights of appellant’s principal without authority, to the injury and detriment of the appellant,” the judgment stated.
The Commercial Court, tasked with enforcing the judgment, instructed court sheriffs to shut down Satcom’s operations.
The court also warned that continued broadcasts of the protected content could lead to contempt charges.
However, with the company still operating, observers are questioning whether the law is being equally applied—or if political or economic influences may have interfered with enforcement.
As of Friday, Satcom Liberia had not issued a public response. Legal experts suggest the court may now need to examine why its orders were not fully executed and whether to pursue contempt proceedings against those involved in the failure to enforce the ruling.
