Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
By Magret Thomas
DR. Sylvia Blyden was a complainant whose matter was first on the list to have had her ruling in pubic at the conference hall of Independent Media Commission whilst the others were subsequently delivered by Joseph Egbenda Kapua Esq.
This Complaint comes before the Commission by way of an Affidavit sworn to on the 7th January 2026 by Dr Sylvia Olayinka Blyden (hereafter referred to as “the Complainant”), pursuant to section 19(3) of the Independent Media Commission Act No. 5 of 2020.
The Complainant deposes to three capacities relevant to this matter: National Goodwill Ambassador for the Children of Sierra Leone; former Cabinet Minister with responsibility for Children’s Affairs; and a declared aspirant for the office of President of Sierra Leone in 2028. None of these capacities is disputed by the Respondent.
The Respondent, Liberty TV Online (“the Respondent”), is a media house licensed with the Commission and appeared through its journalists, Khadija Bangura and Mabel Kabba, who filed an Affidavit in Opposition on 2nd February 2026.
The Commission notes at the outset that Madam Zainab Sheriff, whose on-air statements gave rise to this Complaint, is not a party to these proceedings. This Ruling determines only the regulatory responsibility of the Respondent as licensee for what it broadcast and published under its own name. It makes no finding as to Madam Sheriff’s personal liability, and nothing in this Ruling should be read as a finding, adjudicated on its merits, that her underlying statements were false only that the Respondent failed to meet the standard the Regulations impose on it as broadcaster.
The dispute traces to a public falling-out between the Complainant and entertainer Zainab Sheriff. Beginning on the 27th June 2025, Ms. Sheriff publicly declared, including at a mosque gathering in Kissy, that a women’s group under her leadership would not support the Complainant’s presidential ambitions, and disparaged the Complainant across social media through her associated blog, BORN-2-BLOG. The Complainant states that she declined to respond, treating these as protected but unwelcome opinion. The complaint proper arises from a breakfast programme broadcast by the Respondent between 8:00am and 9:30am on Friday, 11th July 2025, on which Ms. Sheriff was a guest. The Complainant alleges that, under questioning from Ms. Bangura and Ms. Kabba, Ms. Sheriff made three specific claims concerning the Complainant:
That the Complainant had posted derogatory content about Ms. Sheriff on a WhatsApp/Facebook “Status” in 2013 – a feature the Complainant says did not exist on either platform until 2017;
That the Complainant had entered Ms. Sheriff’s residence; and
That the Complainant had attempted to covertly record a minor child at that residence.
The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent, having broadcast these claims live, subsequently extracted a one-minute-two-second clip and republished it under its own name as an original news item, framing it with the assertion that the Complainant had “showed some level of dishonesty,” without first seeking her response.
The Complainant states that she protested directly to Ms. Bangura and Ms. Kabba from July 2025 onwards, demanding a retraction and an apology, and that the Respondent instead offered only a studio appearance which she regarded as an invitation to a public “debate” with Ms. Sheriff an exercise she declined. She approached the Commission to lodge this formal Complaint in July 2025, the hearing of which was delayed pending constitution of the Commission’s full complement of Commissioners.
The Respondent denies any breach of the Regulations. It says it had no advance knowledge that Ms. Sheriff’s claims were untrue, that its broadcasts are balanced and impartial, that it carried a standing on-screen disclaimer dissociating itself from guests’ views, and that it extended the Complainant an “unconditional right of reply” of fifteen minutes on its breakfast show, which she declined in favour of legal advice. The Respondent denies ever being asked to take the material down, and denies any hostile or coordinated intent.
Seventeen exhibits (SB01–SB17) were tendered by the Complainant and six (KBMK1–KBMK6) by the Respondent. Of principal relevance are: SB01 and SB02, the video extracts of the 11th July 2025 broadcast and its subsequent re-publication as a news item; SB08–SB10, the SMS and WhatsApp exchanges between the parties; and SB14–SB16, documentary material on the rollout date of social media “Status” functionality. The Commission has had regard to all exhibits filed, whether or not individually referenced below.
Three issues fall for determination: Whether responsibility for the accuracy of a guest’s on-air statement rests with the broadcaster or the guest; whether the Respondent’s offer of a right of reply discharged its obligations under Regulation 6, notwithstanding the Complainant’s subsequent demand for retraction; and
Whether the Respondent’s own news summary, asserting that the Complainant had “showed some level of dishonesty,” was itself an independent breach.
Regulation 5(1) of the Independent Media Commission (Print and Electronic Media) Regulations, 2022 provides that a media practitioner or institution shall (a) take reasonable steps to provide accurate, balanced and credible information to the public, and (b) not air live phone-in segments without call-delay equipment to screen incoming content before broadcast. This place the obligation of accuracy on the broadcaster, not on any guest appearing on its platform a guest owes no regulatory duty to the Commission at all.
At the hearing, the Commission specifically invited the Respondent’s legal representatives to produce any evidence substantiating the claims that the Complainant had entered Ms. Sheriff’s premises or attempted to record a child there. None was produced.
13. The Commission is careful to distinguish two different findings that could be made on this record. The first – which the evidence supports – is that the Respondent broadcast a serious factual allegation against a named individual without any reasonable steps to verify it, contrary to Regulation 5(1)(a). The second – which the evidence does not support, because the underlying truth of the allegation was never tried on its merits – is a finding that the allegation was in fact false. The Commission makes only the first finding. The absence of substantiating evidence from the Respondent establishes a failure of verification; it does not, without more, establish the converse. This distinction matters both for fairness to the Respondent and for the precision of the remedy that follows.
The Respondent placed substantial reliance on the right of reply under Regulation 6, which provides: “6(1) The Commission shall, where a media practitioner or institution publishes or broadcasts information that affects peace and national security, order an immediate retraction. (2) A media practitioner or institution that publishes or broadcasts information that is untrue shall, within a reasonable time or when called upon to do so or when ordered by the Commission – (a) accord an opportunity to the offended party to reply immediately or in the next publication or broadcast; or (b) make a retraction in equal measure as the offending publication or broadcast.” Two readings of sub-regulation (2) were canvassed. On the Respondent’s reading, paragraphs (a) and (b) are true alternatives: once a broadcaster has offered a reply, it has fully discharged its obligation, and no further retraction can be compelled merely because the complainant later insists on one. On the Complainant’s reading, a right of reply and a retraction address different harms – the former lets the complainant tell her own side; the latter corrects the record itself – and a complainant who is not satisfied by the former may still invoke the latter by calling upon the broadcaster to retract. The Commission prefers the Complainant’s reading, for three reasons. First, the opening words of sub-regulation (2) “within a reasonable time or when called upon to do so or when ordered by the Commission” attach to the obligation to remedy generally, and contemplate an evolving process rather than a single election exhausted by the broadcaster’s first response. Second, reading paragraph (b) as available only where a reply was never offered would leave a complainant who accepts a right of reply, but whose reply does not in fact neutralise a serious factual falsehood, with no further remedy at all – an outcome inconsistent with Regulation 5’s basic guarantee of accuracy. Third, a right of reply lets the complainant speak; it does not require the broadcaster to correct what it broadcast. Where what is in dispute is a discrete, checkable factual claim (entry into a residence; an attempt to record a child) rather than a matter of opinion or characterisation, a reply that merely adds the complainant’s denial to the record, without withdrawing the unverified claim, does not answer Regulation 5(1)(a)’s demand for accuracy. Sub-regulation 6(2) is drafted disjunctively, not conjunctively: paragraphs (a) and (b) are alternative routes to remedy, not a menu from which the broadcaster may choose and thereby discharge itself. A right of reply satisfies paragraph (a). It does not answer paragraph (b), which independently obliges retraction “when called upon” by the aggrieved party. The question, then, is not whether a right of reply was offered, but whether a retraction was demanded. The Commission does not, however, accept that a right of reply is legally irrelevant: where a broadcaster has extended a genuine and prompt opportunity to reply, that will ordinarily be a material factor going to sanction, even where a retraction is separately due.
On the facts, Exhibit SB09 records the Complainant stating, in a WhatsApp exchange with the Respondent, that “only a Public Apology AND a retraction of your malicious extraction will do.” The Respondent’s affidavit does not deny sending or receiving this exchange; it denies only that it was separately asked to “take the material down.” The Commission does not read those as inconsistent: a demand for retraction is, on ordinary usage, a demand that the offending material be corrected or withdrawn. The Commission accordingly finds that the Respondent was called upon, within the meaning of Regulation 6(2)(b), to retract, and that its offer of a right of reply whatever its sincerity – did not discharge that separate obligation once invoked.
Counsel for the Respondent submitted that an on-screen disclaimer a standard broadcast-industry device limiting liability for guest statements insulated the Respondent from responsibility. No authority was cited for this proposition, and the Commission is aware of none that would apply within this regulatory framework.
The Commission’s mandate is to regulate media institutions and practitioners, not their guests. It is the broadcaster’s function, not the Commission’s, to control content aired by guests on its own platform. A disclaimer may be a good broadcasting practice; it is not a shield against the Regulations. To hold otherwise would allow any licensed broadcaster to immunise itself from Regulation 5 simply by scrolling a caption – a result the Regulations plainly do not contemplate.
Separately from the live broadcast, the Respondent republished a news summary asserting that Ms Sheriff “claims Blyden has showed some level of dishonesty hence can’t rally behind her for a presidential role.” This was published under the Respondent’s own name, as its own editorial product, without any prior recourse to the Complainant for comment, and the Commission was unable to locate any such characterisation within the broadcast interview itself. 21. Counsel for the Respondent in their legal submission sought to answer this with dictionary definitions of “adversity,” “claim,” and “smear campaign,” and submitted that a smear campaign requires proof of an intention to discredit. The Commission finds this submission unhelpful and, with respect, beside the point. What matters is not the abstract meaning of these words but whether there was any evidential basis for publishing an accusation of dishonesty against a named individual. The Commission accepts that intent may bear on sanction, but rejects the submission that it is a precondition of breach. Regulation 5(1)(a) is framed in terms of the accuracy and balance of what is published, not the state of mind of the publisher. A broadcaster that republishes, under its own editorial byline, an unverified and reputationally damaging characterisation of a named public figure, without affording her any opportunity to respond before publication, breaches that duty regardless of whether it intended to discredit her. The absence of any equivalent characterisation in the underlying interview reinforces the Commission’s finding that this was the Respondent’s own editorial addition, and not a neutral report of what its guest said.
On the totality of the evidence, and applying the balance of probabilities, the Commission finds that:
The Respondent broadcast, without any reasonable steps to verify it, a claim that the Complainant went to Madam Zainab Sheriff’s residence.
The Respondent broadcast, without any reasonable steps to verify it, a claim that the Complainant attempted to record Madam Zainab Sheriff’s minor ward at that residence.
No finding is made as to whether these claims were in fact true or false; that question was not tried on its merits, and the Respondent’s guest is not a party to these proceedings. The finding is confined to the Respondent’s failure to verify before broadcasting.
The Respondent published, under its own name, a news summary asserting that the Complainant had “showed some level of dishonesty,” without first seeking the Complainant’s response and without a corresponding basis in the underlying interview.
The Complainant called upon the Respondent, in terms, to retract; the Respondent did not do so, resting instead on the fact that a right of reply had been offered.
The foregoing conduct breaches Regulations 5(1)(a) and 6(2)(b) of the Independent Media Commission (Print and Electronic Media) Regulations, 2022. Section 24 is subsumed under Section 5 in this determination. The Commission does not find a breach of Regulation 19, there being insufficient evidence of the coordinated intent to discredit that a smear-campaign finding would require. Further, the Commission does not find a breach of Regulation 20, there being insufficient evidence of abuse during the Respondent’s live programme; the abuse complained of from the Complainant’s affidavit in paragraphs 6 and 7 did not take place on the Respondent’s programme; sanction below reflects breach of Regulations 5 and 6 only.
For these reasons, the Commission orders that Liberty TV Online shall, within seven (7) days of receipt of this Ruling:
Publish a clarification, on the same platform and with the same prominence as the original publication, stating that the Respondent was unable to substantiate the claims that the Complainant entered Madam Zainab Sheriff’s residence or attempted to record a minor there, that those claims should not have been broadcast without verification, and that they are withdrawn;
Publish an unqualified retraction of the news summary imputing dishonesty to the Complainant, on the same platform and with the same prominence as the original publication; and
This being the Respondent’s first appearance before the Commission on a complaint of this nature, no costs or fines are imposed. The Respondent is however cautioned as to their future conduct.
