Increasing budgetary support to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Liberia is not merely an administrative necessity; it is a strategic investment in national development, public health, climate resilience, biodiversity conservation, and environmental sustainability. As Liberia advances its development priorities, adequate funding is essential to enable the EPA to effectively discharge its statutory mandate, strengthen environmental compliance and enforcement, and ensure that economic growth does not come at the expense of the country’s natural capital. Increased allocations would provide the resources needed for field inspections, environmental monitoring, laboratory services, enforcement of environmental standards, and follow-up on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements. With stronger operational capacity, the Agency would be better positioned to deter illegal activities, address pollution, protect forests and freshwater ecosystems, safeguard coastal communities, and hold polluters accountable. Ultimately, a well-resourced EPA is fundamental to ensuring that environmental protection becomes an integral part of Liberia’s national development agenda.

By: Arthur R.M. Becker

Equally important, increased funding would strengthen public education, awareness, and stakeholder engagement while supporting the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental policies, regulations, guidelines, and standards. Environmental sustainability cannot be achieved through enforcement alone; it requires informed citizens, responsible businesses, active local authorities, and communities that understand their rights and responsibilities. Adequate resources would enable the EPA to expand environmental education in schools and communities, intensify public campaigns on waste management and pollution prevention, promote sustainable natural resource use, and strengthen community-level environmental governance across Liberia’s counties. Furthermore, increased investment would support scientific research, environmental data collection, biodiversity assessments, climate-risk analysis, and evidence-based policymaking. Such investments would improve the quality of environmental decisions, strengthen early-warning and monitoring systems, and ensure that national interventions respond to emerging environmental threats using reliable scientific evidence alongside relevant indigenous and local knowledge.

As the institution responsible for coordinating and supporting the implementation of Liberia’s Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), the EPA also requires stronger financial and technical capacity to translate international commitments into practical national action. This includes supporting the domestication and implementation of relevant international environmental obligations through national legislation, policies, strategies, action plans, reporting systems, and institutional coordination. Adequate funding would strengthen Liberia’s implementation of the Rio Conventions on climate change, biodiversity, and desertification, as well as obligations under the Montreal Protocol, the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, and other applicable environmental agreements. It would also improve chemical and hazardous-waste management, chemical handling and storage practices, import and use controls where applicable, and institutional capacity to prevent environmental contamination and protect workers and communities. Liberia has already made important strides through its national climate policy processes, including the National Adaptation Plan (2020–2030), the advancement of its Nationally Determined Contribution 3.0, biodiversity planning, and participation in international environmental cooperation and reporting. These achievements provide a foundation on which increased domestic financing can build, strengthen national ownership, improve accountability, and reduce dependence on unpredictable external project support.

The case for increased budgetary support is therefore clear: environmental protection must be treated as a core public investment rather than a peripheral expenditure. A stronger EPA would not only improve regulatory compliance and enforcement but also help prevent costly environmental damage, protect livelihoods, support sustainable investment, and ensure that Liberia’s natural resources benefit present and future generations. Increased funding should be accompanied by transparent expenditure management, measurable performance indicators, strengthened institutional capacity, and regular reporting on environmental outcomes to demonstrate value for public money. As Liberia pursues inclusive growth under its national development priorities, a financially empowered EPA is indispensable to achieving a cleaner environment, healthier communities, resilient ecosystems, and sustainable economic development.

Investing in the EPA today is an investment in Liberia’s environmental security, economic resilience, and future prosperity.

Bopolu City – Firestone Liberia has raised awareness about its annual free surgery program for children in Gbarpolu County.

By Henry B Gboluma Jr

The program is sponsored by Firestone Liberia in partnership with Children Surgery International (CSI), a medical group from America.

The awareness was carried out by  Justice R. Clarke, Public Affairs Superintendent of Firestone Liberia, on Tuesday, October 13, during the Tuesday Edition of The Daily Talk on the radio in Bopolu City.

After the radio program,  Clarke visited public places including the Emirates Hospital and local markets to share flyers about the event.

According to him, Firestone Liberia and CSI will conduct free surgeries for children from 0 to 13 years at the Firestone Medical Center (Duside Hospital) from January 20 to February 5, 2027.

The surgeries will be for children with ear, nose, and throat problems, cleft lip and cleft palate, hernia, hydrocele, and other conditions.

Clarke said registration and screening are from September 1 to December 15, 2026, every Tuesday and Thursday at the Firestone Medical Center from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM. People can also register at the Harbel Health Center.

He explained that after registration and screening, if a child is qualified for the program, the parents will be given a ticket. Before the doctors arrive, all successful registrants will be called to come to the hospital for the free surgery.

He added that while at the hospital, Firestone will be responsible for feeding three times daily and lodging for the parents and children. The only thing parents need to do is to transport themselves to the hospital.

For more information, the public can contact the Harbel Health Center on *0778-62-1180 or 0778-62-1183.

For the Firestone Medical Center (Duside Hospital), call 0776-58-2702, 0775-07-2644, 0775-81-0404, or 0778-50-8977.

He said Firestone Liberia and CSI are working to change children’s lives, one child at a time.

About Firestone Liberia

‎‎Firestone Liberia is one of the oldest and largest companies in Liberia.

The company started its rubber plantation in Liberia in 1926 in Harbel, Margibi County. For almost 100 years, Firestone has been producing natural rubber for export.

‎Besides rubber production, Firestone Liberia operates one of the largest private hospitals in the country, the Firestone Medical Center (Duside Hospital) and also runs schools and other social services.

The company also partners with international medical groups like Children Surgery International (CSI) to provide free medical services to Liberians.

Through this partnership, over thousands of Liberian children have received free surgeries over the years, changing their lives one child at a time.

A Patriotic Citizen’s Position on Historical Truth, Ancestral Migration, Ethnic Identity, Political Manipulation, Public Safety, and Genuine National Reconciliation

By Charles E. King (Coach King)
Former Deputy Director of Police for Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Affairs, Liberia National Police
Graduate, Liberia National Police Academy, Republic of Liberia
Graduate, FBI National Academy, Quantico, Virginia, United States of America
Self-Development and Transformational Coach

A SPECIAL RECOGNITION OF COMMITMENT TO HISTORICAL TRUTH

Before presenting my position on Liberia’s history and the urgent need for genuine national reconciliation, I wish to express my sincere admiration and appreciation for the educational work of Ms. Kau Yeyia Fahnbulleh, particularly her efforts to teach the history of Liberia to our young people.

What has captured my admiration is the care, seriousness, and apparent commitment to historical accuracy that I have observed in her presentations. She demonstrates a willingness to discuss difficult chapters of Liberia’s past without avoiding subjects simply because they may touch upon her own ancestral background.

This quality is especially important to me.

I believe that anyone who undertakes the responsibility of teaching history must be prepared to present the achievements and failures of the past with equal honesty. History should not be selectively presented to protect our ancestors, defend our ethnic communities, or satisfy the political preferences of our generation.

The educator’s responsibility is to the truth and to the young people who depend upon that truth to develop their understanding of the world.

In this respect, I see a meaningful similarity between the approach I admire in Ms. Fahnbulleh and the historical scholarship of Dr. C. Patrick Burrowes, particularly his willingness to examine uncomfortable aspects of Liberia’s history in Liberia and the Quest for Freedom: The Half That Has Never Been Told.

I am not suggesting that their work is identical. Rather, I recognize in both an approach that encourages Liberians to look beyond familiar historical narratives and examine the broader evidence.

Ms. Fahnbulleh’s contribution is particularly meaningful because she is reaching young people whose understanding of their country, their ancestry, and their fellow citizens is still developing.

A young Liberian who learns that history must be examined fairly is less likely to accept inherited accusations against another community without asking for evidence.

A young Liberian who understands that ancestors were human beings capable of both admirable and regrettable actions is better prepared to exercise independent judgment.

And a young Liberian who learns to acknowledge uncomfortable historical facts without feeling personally condemned by them is better equipped to participate in national reconciliation.

I therefore wish to publicly recognize and commend Ms. Kau Yeyia Fahnbulleh for the historical educational work that has earned my admiration.

I hope that her example, together with the scholarship of Dr. Burrowes and the contributions of other serious historians and educators, will encourage more Liberians to approach our national history with courage, fairness, intellectual honesty, and a genuine desire to learn.

For it is only when we are willing to examine the whole of our history—not merely those portions that favor our own families, ethnic communities, or political positions—that we can begin to build the mutual understanding necessary for genuine national reconciliation.

INTRODUCTION: WHY I AM MAKING THIS STATEMENT

Liberia cannot reconcile with a history its people have never fully understood.

I make this statement as a patriotic Liberian who believes deeply in the future of our country and the capacity of our people to overcome the divisions that have repeatedly threatened our national unity.

My perspective has been shaped by years of professional service in law enforcement, criminal investigation, administration, training, and public safety.

I began my law enforcement career as a graduate of the Liberia National Police Academy and eventually attained the rank of Deputy Director of Police. I also had the privilege of graduating from the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia.

Those experiences taught me the importance of evidence, careful investigation, impartial judgment, and individual accountability.

In criminal investigation, we do not establish responsibility merely because someone belongs to a particular family, community, or organization. We examine the facts, identify the individuals involved, and determine what the evidence supports.

I believe Liberia’s historical discussions require the same discipline.

For too long, our national conversations have frequently been shaped by incomplete historical accounts, inherited grievances, ethnic suspicions, and political interpretations that encourage Liberians to see one another through the mistakes of earlier generations.

We cannot build lasting reconciliation upon incomplete knowledge.

Nor can we expect our young people to develop a shared national identity when they are encouraged to inherit historical accusations they have never been taught to examine.

This article is not intended to defend one community against another.

It is not an attempt to excuse injustice, diminish suffering, or rewrite Liberia’s history.

It is an appeal for a more complete understanding of that history and for the independent thinking necessary to transform historical knowledge into national understanding.

PART ONE: LIBERIA’S HISTORY DID NOT BEGIN IN 1822

One of the greatest weaknesses in popular discussions of Liberian history is the tendency to begin the country’s story with the arrival of Black settlers from the United States in the nineteenth century.

The year 1822 is important. It marks a significant development in the establishment of the settlement that eventually became the Republic of Liberia.

But the people, communities, and territories that became Liberia possessed histories long before that date.

Our ancestors migrated, settled, traded, formed political relationships, developed systems of leadership, practiced religious traditions, fought wars, and interacted with neighboring societies.

Some communities experienced displacement and conquest. Others established commercial relationships with distant regions.

The Atlantic slave trade also affected coastal and inland societies long before the establishment of Liberia.

When we begin the national story in 1822, we risk treating the indigenous populations as though they appeared only when the settlers arrived.

That is historically inadequate.

A complete understanding of Liberia requires us to examine the earlier history of the territory and the peoples who inhabited it.

The arrival of the settlers should be understood as an important chapter within a much longer historical story, not the beginning of that story.

PART TWO: OUR ANCESTRAL MIGRATIONS DESERVE SERIOUS STUDY

Liberia’s ethnic communities did not all arrive in the territory at the same time or through identical historical circumstances.

The ancestors of today’s Liberians experienced movements of population over many centuries.

Some migrations were associated with trade, family relationships, agriculture, environmental conditions, political changes, and conflict.

The history of these movements is complex, and not every migration tradition can be assigned a precise date.

Nevertheless, the study of ancestral migration is essential to understanding how our communities came to occupy different parts of the territory that became Liberia.

Such study can also help us recognize that the histories of our ethnic communities extend beyond today’s national borders.

The boundaries of the modern Republic of Liberia do not define the full extent of our ancestral experiences.

Our young people should therefore be introduced to historical evidence drawn from oral traditions, linguistics, archaeology, written records, and other relevant fields.

They should also understand that different sources may provide different accounts.

The purpose of historical education is not to select whichever account makes our own community appear most important.

It is to examine the available evidence and reach the most reasonable conclusions possible.

PART THREE: THE HISTORY OF SLAVERY MUST BE PRESENTED IN ITS ENTIRETY

The history of slavery is among the most painful subjects in the history of West Africa.

It is also among the subjects most vulnerable to selective interpretation.

The Atlantic slave trade involved foreign merchants, commercial networks, political authorities, armed groups, and individuals who profited from the capture and sale of human beings.

African communities experienced the trade in different ways.

Some people participated in slave trading or assisted those who did.

Others resisted the trade, protected vulnerable populations, or became its victims.

Still others lived under circumstances in which political or military power severely restricted their choices.

These distinctions matter.

We cannot accurately describe the history of slavery by presenting all Africans as participants or all Africans as innocent bystanders.

Neither can we ignore the decisive role of European and American demand, maritime commerce, and the international economic systems that sustained the trade.

Dr. C. Patrick Burrowes’ Liberia and the Quest for Freedom: The Half That Has Never Been Told is particularly valuable because it encourages readers to examine aspects of this history that have not always received sufficient attention in popular accounts.

His work addresses the involvement of particular African authorities and trading networks while also documenting African resistance and the efforts of Black repatriates to suppress the trade.

Such history should be studied carefully, with attention to sources, chronology, and the differences between individuals and communities.

We must teach documented historical participation, not inherited ethnic guilt.

PART FOUR: THE ARRIVAL OF THE REPATRIATES MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN CONTEXT

The arrival of Black settlers from the Americas is central to Liberia’s national history.

Many of these migrants had experienced enslavement, racial discrimination, or the consequences of those systems.

Their search for freedom, security, opportunity, and political self-determination deserves recognition.

At the same time, their arrival took place within a territory already inhabited by African communities with established interests, authorities, and traditions.

Relationships between settlers and indigenous populations included cooperation, commerce, negotiation, competition, conflict, and unequal political arrangements.

It would be historically irresponsible to present the settlers as uniformly benevolent.

It would be equally irresponsible to portray every settler as an oppressor or to disregard the contributions of those who opposed slave trading and helped establish institutions that later became part of the Liberian state.

The historical record requires us to consider both constructive achievements and harmful actions.

Our task is not to create heroes and villains according to ancestral identity.

Our task is to understand the circumstances, choices, and consequences that shaped the country.

PART FIVE: THE ROLE OF INDIGENOUS LIBERIANS MUST NOT BE SIMPLIFIED

The term indigenous Liberians refers to communities with different histories, languages, political structures, and relationships with neighboring societies.

These communities did not always act together.

They did not necessarily share the same interests.

Their relationships with the emerging Liberian state varied by location, period, and political circumstances.

Some rulers and communities negotiated agreements with settlers.

Others resisted the expansion of state authority.

Some participated in regional commerce, including forms of commerce connected with slavery.

Others opposed slave raiding or suffered from it.

To treat all indigenous Liberians as though they possessed a single political history is to overlook these differences.

The same principle applies to the descendants of repatriates.

We must resist the temptation to turn broad historical categories into permanent accusations against living people.

A fair national history must acknowledge the diversity of experience within every community.

PART SIX: THE DANGER OF INHERITED COLLECTIVE GUILT

One of the most troubling consequences of selective historical teaching is the belief that individuals living today should be held personally responsible for the actions of their ancestors.

Historical responsibility and inherited personal guilt are not the same.

We may inherit the consequences of past events.

We may benefit from institutions established through unequal arrangements.

We may also inherit disadvantages created by historical injustice.

These realities deserve serious examination.

But a person should not be condemned merely because an ancestor belonged to a particular social group or participated in a particular historical system.

Individual responsibility requires evidence.

This principle has guided my understanding of justice throughout my professional career.

It should also guide our approach to historical reconciliation.

Acknowledging injustice does not require accusing every descendant of the people associated with that injustice.

Similarly, recognizing the suffering of one community does not require denying the suffering of another.

Liberia needs a historical conversation that is both truthful and fair.

PART SEVEN: ETHNIC IDENTITY MUST NOT BECOME A POLITICAL WEAPON

Liberia’s ethnic diversity should be recognized as an important part of the country’s cultural inheritance.

Our languages, customs, historical experiences, and traditions contribute to the richness of our national identity.

Yet ethnic identity can also be manipulated.

When political leaders encourage citizens to judge one another primarily by ancestry, they weaken the principle of equal citizenship.

A person’s ethnic background should not determine whether that individual is considered patriotic, trustworthy, qualified, or entitled to participate in national life.

Neither should historical grievances become a justification for discrimination against people who played no personal role in the events being discussed.

The challenge is not to eliminate ethnic identity.

It is to ensure that ethnic identity does not override our shared responsibilities as Liberians.

We can respect our ancestral communities while remaining committed to one Republic.

PART EIGHT: SOME POLITICIANS AND SOME PROGRESSIVES HAVE EXPLOITED HISTORICAL DIVISIONS

I believe it is necessary to address a sensitive but important subject.

Some politicians, and some individuals who describe themselves as progressives, have used selective interpretations of Liberia’s history to advance political objectives.

This does not mean that all politicians or all progressives have acted in this manner.

Liberia has benefited from individuals across different political traditions who challenged injustice, advocated reform, and made genuine sacrifices for the country.

Nevertheless, historical grievances can be politically useful.

They can mobilize supporters, identify enemies, strengthen group loyalty, and distract attention from present-day failures of leadership.

When historical accounts are presented without adequate context, citizens may be encouraged to blame entire communities rather than examine the conduct of particular officials, institutions, or political movements.

The result can be an atmosphere in which resentment becomes easier to cultivate than understanding.

My concern is not with political disagreement.

Political disagreement is a normal part of democratic life.

My concern is with the deliberate or careless use of incomplete historical narratives to deepen divisions among Liberians.

A political argument should be evaluated on its evidence and merits, not merely on the ethnic identity of the person presenting it.

A SPECIAL APPEAL TO POLITICAL ASPIRANTS, PROGRESSIVES, AND PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO ADDRESS OUR YOUNG PEOPLE

I wish to address an additional appeal to some aspiring political leaders, some progressives, and some officials of government who are frequently invited to speak at schools, youth programs, community gatherings, and other public engagements. Such invitations are not merely opportunities to deliver speeches. They are opportunities to influence how young Liberians understand their country, their fellow citizens, and their own responsibilities.

When a speaker stands before students or members of the public, the audience may regard that person as an authority. Young listeners in particular may repeat what they hear without having the historical background or resources to test it. For that reason, a speaker’s words can educate and unite, but they can also reinforce prejudice, deepen suspicion, or spread an incomplete account of our past.

I urge these speakers to prepare carefully, verify historical claims, distinguish documented facts from personal interpretations, and acknowledge where the evidence is disputed or incomplete. No speaker should present an entire ethnic community, ancestral group, or political tradition as uniformly guilty or uniformly innocent because of the actions of particular individuals. The same caution applies when discussing the arrival of repatriates, the history of slavery, the development of the Liberian state, and the events surrounding our civil wars.

Political ambition, public office, and a reputation for progressive thinking do not lessen this responsibility; they increase it. A school platform should not become a convenient place to recruit young people into inherited resentment or partisan hostility. Nor should a public engagement be used to repeat historical accusations merely because they attract applause.

I am not asking public speakers to conceal injustice or avoid difficult subjects. On the contrary, I ask them to address such subjects with the courage to tell the truth, the discipline to examine evidence, and the fairness to recognize complexity—even when the facts are uncomfortable for their own ancestors, supporters, or political associates.

Before speaking, I encourage every invited guest to ask: Is what I am about to say accurate? Can I support it with credible evidence? Have I made clear the difference between individuals and entire communities? Will my words help these young people understand Liberia, or merely teach them whom to resent?

Those who have the privilege of addressing our young people should leave them better informed, more thoughtful, and more capable of judging history independently. That is a service to national reconciliation and, in my judgment, an obligation of responsible leadership.

PART NINE: LIBERIA’S CIVIL WARS REQUIRE A BROADER HISTORICAL EXPLANATION

Liberia’s civil wars inflicted enormous suffering upon our people.

Families were destroyed.

Communities were displaced.

Public institutions collapsed.

Children experienced violence and insecurity that no child should have to endure.

Ethnic divisions and historical grievances were among the factors that influenced the conflicts.

But the wars cannot be adequately explained through ethnic identity alone.

Political repression, abuses of state power, competition for authority, economic conditions, armed mobilization, external influences, and the decisions of particular leaders and organizations must also be examined.

It is dangerous to suggest that entire ethnic communities were responsible for the actions of armed factions or political authorities.

Such interpretations can preserve hostility long after the fighting has ended.

A responsible understanding of the civil wars must identify patterns of abuse while also recognizing the individual and institutional decisions that contributed to violence.

The suffering of victims deserves acknowledgment regardless of their ethnicity, political affiliation, religion, or social background.

Our duty is to learn from the events so that future generations will not repeat them.

PART TEN: HISTORICAL EDUCATION IS A PUBLIC-SAFETY CONCERN

My years in law enforcement taught me that threats to public safety do not arise only from immediate criminal acts.

They may also develop from underlying conditions that are ignored until those conditions produce conflict.

Persistent mistrust, misinformation, perceived injustice, political manipulation, and ethnic hostility can create environments in which violence becomes more likely.

Historical ignorance can contribute to these conditions.

When citizens accept accusations against entire communities without examining the evidence, suspicion may become normalized.

When political leaders exploit that suspicion, social divisions can deepen.

When young people inherit hostility without understanding its origins, they may become vulnerable to manipulation.

For these reasons, I believe historical education has a legitimate role in preventing conflict and strengthening public safety.

This does not mean that every disagreement about history will produce violence.

It means that a society committed to peace should take seriously the ways historical narratives influence attitudes, relationships, and political behavior.

Public safety is strengthened when citizens learn to distinguish facts from rumors, individuals from groups, and legitimate grievances from inflammatory accusations.

PART ELEVEN: OUR YOUNG PEOPLE MUST LEARN HOW TO EXAMINE HISTORY

Young Liberians should not be expected merely to memorize historical claims.

They should be taught how to examine them.

A proper historical education should encourage students to ask important questions:

Who made this statement?
What evidence supports it?
When was the information recorded?
Was the person who recorded it an eyewitness?
Could the source have been influenced by political, commercial, religious, or personal interests?
Are there other sources that confirm or challenge the account?
What information remains uncertain?

These questions are not intended to encourage disrespect for elders, teachers, or historians.

They are intended to develop intellectual independence.

The ability to examine evidence is essential to responsible citizenship.

It is also central to the self-development principles I encourage: Think Better, Decide Better, and Act Better.

A young person who learns to think carefully is better prepared to make responsible decisions.

A young person who learns to question unsupported accusations is less likely to participate in unjust treatment of others.

A young person who understands the relationship between decisions and consequences is better prepared to contribute to a peaceful society.

Historical education should therefore be treated as an opportunity to develop critical thinking, moral judgment, and civic responsibility.

PART TWELVE: THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SERIOUS HISTORIANS AND EDUCATORS DESERVE RECOGNITION

Liberia needs historians, researchers, teachers, and community educators who are prepared to examine difficult historical subjects.

Dr. C. Patrick Burrowes’ work is an important contribution to this effort.

His book Liberia and the Quest for Freedom: The Half That Has Never Been Told encourages readers to reconsider assumptions about slavery, repatriation, resistance, and historical responsibility.

The value of such scholarship lies not in requiring every reader to agree with every conclusion.

It lies in encouraging serious engagement with historical evidence.

This is also why I admire the educational efforts of Ms. Kau Yeyia Fahnbulleh.

Her willingness, as I have observed it, to address difficult aspects of Liberian history—even where they touch upon ancestral identity—offers an example of the approach I believe our young people need.

We should encourage more educators to present Liberia’s history with similar care.

Historical education must not become an exercise in defending one community while condemning another.

Nor should it become an attempt to remove every uncomfortable fact from our national story.

The goal must be understanding.

When historians disagree, students should be encouraged to examine the competing evidence.

When historical sources are incomplete, educators should acknowledge the uncertainty.

When evidence reveals wrongdoing, that wrongdoing should not be concealed because of the identity of those involved.

This is how historical education can become a foundation for reconciliation rather than another source of division.

PART THIRTEEN: RECONCILIATION REQUIRES MORE THAN FORGIVENESS

Liberians have often been encouraged to forgive, forget, and move forward.

Forgiveness can be valuable.

It may help individuals and communities overcome bitterness and rebuild relationships.

But forgiveness alone cannot substitute for historical understanding, accountability, institutional reform, and fair treatment.

A person who has suffered injustice may reasonably wish to understand what happened and why.

A community that has experienced discrimination may seek acknowledgment of its history.

A nation emerging from conflict must consider how institutions can be strengthened to prevent repeated abuses.

Reconciliation should therefore involve more than public declarations of unity.

It should encourage truthful historical education, respect for victims, fair consideration of evidence, and a commitment to equal citizenship.

We should also recognize that different people may understand reconciliation differently.

Some may emphasize justice.

Others may emphasize acknowledgment, restitution, forgiveness, institutional reform, or the preservation of historical memory.

A serious national reconciliation process must be capable of considering these concerns without reducing them to political slogans.

PART FOURTEEN: WHAT LIBERIA SHOULD DO DIFFERENTLY

I believe Liberia should place greater emphasis on historical education as part of its broader national development and reconciliation efforts.

Our schools, universities, libraries, community organizations, and media institutions can all contribute.

Students should learn about the history of the territory before 1822 as well as the establishment and development of the Republic.

They should examine ancestral migrations, regional trade, slavery, resistance, repatriation, state expansion, political reform, and the events that contributed to the civil wars.

The contributions and experiences of different communities should be presented without treating any one group as the exclusive author of Liberia’s achievements or failures.

Educational programs should also explain the difference between historical facts, interpretations, opinions, and unresolved questions.

Radio discussions, youth forums, community lectures, and public conversations can make this learning available beyond formal classrooms.

Liberians living in the diaspora also have an important role.

They can support educational initiatives, share historical resources, participate in informed discussions, and encourage younger generations to understand their ancestral homeland.

However, any educational effort must remain open to scrutiny.

The purpose should not be to replace one selective historical narrative with another.

It should be to establish a culture in which evidence is respected and different perspectives can be examined without hostility.

PART FIFTEEN: MY APPEAL TO ALL LIBERIANS

I appeal to Liberians at home and throughout the diaspora to approach our national history with renewed seriousness.

Let us stop treating history as a competition between ethnic communities.

Let us stop assuming that acknowledging the wrongdoing of an ancestor means condemning every descendant.

Let us also stop believing that patriotism requires us to defend every action associated with our own historical background.

Patriotism should encourage us to seek the truth because we care about the future of our country.

We must be prepared to acknowledge the suffering of indigenous communities.

We must also recognize the struggles, contributions, and aspirations of Black repatriates.

We must examine the history of slavery and the people who participated in it, opposed it, or suffered under it.

We must study the decisions of political leaders, the failures of institutions, and the conditions that contributed to national conflict.

Above all, we must teach our young people that they are not required to inherit the hostility of earlier generations.

They are entitled to know the past.

They are entitled to examine it independently.

And they are entitled to build relationships with fellow Liberians based upon character, conduct, and shared citizenship rather than inherited suspicion.

CONCLUSION: LIBERIA’S FUTURE DEPENDS UPON HOW WE UNDERSTAND ITS PAST

I remain convinced that Liberia possesses the human capacity to overcome the divisions that have affected our national development.

But this will require more than repeated appeals for unity.

It will require intellectual honesty.

It will require the courage to acknowledge uncomfortable historical facts.

It will require the fairness to distinguish the actions of individuals from the identities of entire communities.

And it will require a commitment to teaching our young people a more complete understanding of the country they have inherited.

My admiration for educators such as Ms. Kau Yeyia Fahnbulleh, and my appreciation for the historical scholarship of Dr. C. Patrick Burrowes, arise from this conviction.

I believe that Liberians should be encouraged to examine historical evidence even when the findings challenge the stories they have accepted throughout their lives.

We should not fear historical truth.

We should fear the consequences of allowing historical ignorance to shape our relationships, political decisions, and national identity.

As a former law enforcement officer, I understand the importance of establishing facts before reaching conclusions.

As a Self-Development and Transformational Coach, I understand the importance of changing the way we think before expecting lasting changes in the way we act.

And as a patriotic Liberian, I believe these principles are essential to our national future.

Liberia cannot reconcile with a history its people have never fully understood.

But a Liberia whose people are willing to learn, question, acknowledge, and understand that history can begin building a different future.

A future in which ancestral identity is respected without becoming a source of hostility.

A future in which historical injustice is acknowledged without assigning inherited guilt.

A future in which our children are taught to think independently rather than inherit political resentment.

And a future in which national reconciliation becomes more than a familiar expression.

It becomes a commitment reflected in how we educate our children, treat our neighbors, govern our institutions, and understand our responsibilities to one another.

That is the Liberia I believe we should work to build.

Charles E. King (Coach King)
Former Deputy Director of Police for Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Affairs
Liberia National Police
Graduate, Liberia National Police Academy, Republic of Liberia
Graduate, FBI National Academy, Quantico, Virginia, USA
Self-Development and Transformational Coach

Written as a patriotic citizen’s appeal for historical understanding, independent thinking, equal citizenship, and genuine national reconciliation.

On Monday, October 12, standing before President Joseph Boakai and the nation’s senior officials at the opening of the Supreme Court’s October Term, Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay Sr. asked the Legislature to consider abolishing Liberia’s trial jury system. His case fit in one sentence: “A corrupt jury is worse than no jury at all.”

By George Fahnbulleh, Contributing Writer

It is a memorable line. It is also the wrong conclusion.

What unsettles me is a pattern I have watched for most of my life. Our officials are devoted constitutionalists right up to the moment the Constitution asks something hard of them. Then, instead of finding a solution inside the framework they swore to uphold, they propose removing whatever has become inconvenient to administer. That is not legal wisdom. It is institutional failure presented as reform.

What the Chief Justice Proposed
To be fair to the Chief Justice, he did not speak in abstractions. He pointed to reported jury tampering in Nimba, Grand Gedeh, Bomi, and Margibi counties, in cases ranging from rape to drug trafficking. In one Bomi County case, tampering surfaced weeks after an acquittal, and a judicial investigation concluded it had occurred. He also cited suspected interference at Criminal Court “C.”

Those are serious allegations, and nobody defending the jury should wave them away. Bribing or threatening a juror strikes at the heart of a fair trial. The Liberia National Bar Association condemned tampering while making clear that joining any review is not an endorsement of abolition. Senator Abraham Darius Dillon went further, pointing out that the right cannot be removed by ordinary legislation.

But this is not the first time the Chief Justice has set his sights on the jury. At his confirmation hearing in July 2025, his argument was about caseloads: the population and court dockets had grown, he said, and jury trials could not keep up. Now the justification is corruption. When the destination stays fixed while the reasons change, the public is entitled to ask which one is actually driving the proposal.

Why This Is Personal
My father was convicted by a jury during the presidency of William V. S. Tubman.

We knew how that trial would end. Every case the government brought in those years seemed to end the same way. The courtroom offered the form of due process—the robes, the oath, the citizens in the jury box—while the outcome felt settled before the first witness was called.

When we went looking for a lawyer, one of the country’s most respected law firms told us plainly: “We do not represent people charged with crimes against the government.”

I have carried that sentence for decades. It told a family that the nature of the accusation alone placed them beyond the help of the legal profession.

So I hold no romantic illusions about juries. A jury sat in my father’s case, and it did not save him.

But that experience leads me to the opposite of the Chief Justice’s conclusion. The jury did not fail my father on its own. It failed because the institutions around it—the prosecution, the bar, the courts, the presidency—were bent toward a predetermined result. Removing the citizens from that courtroom would not have made the outcome any less certain. It would only have made it more efficient.

The Constitution Is Not a Convenience
Liberia’s Constitution does not treat jury trial as an administrative option. Article 20(a) requires that justice be done without sale, denial, or delay, and guarantees the right to trial by jury in cases outside courts not of record, courts-martial, and impeachment. Article 21(h) guarantees anyone charged with a capital or infamous crime a speedy, public, and impartial jury trial, unless that person, with appropriate understanding, expressly waives it.

Notice where the choice sits. The Constitution allows the accused to give up a jury. It does not allow the state to take it away.

The Chief Justice understands this. In 2017, presiding over Criminal Court “C” in the Sable Mining bribery case, then-Judge Gbeisay reluctantly granted the defendants’ request to proceed without a jury, noting that jury trial was their right under Article 21(h). He was right then. The right belongs to the accused.

Nor can the Legislature abolish it by statute. Article 2 makes the Constitution supreme and voids any law inconsistent with it. Removing these guarantees would require an amendment under Article 91: a proposal backed by two-thirds of both houses, followed by a national referendum held no sooner than a year later.

The Chief Justice is free to advocate for that. But the existence of an amendment process does not make every amendment wise. The head of the branch charged with interpreting and defending the Constitution should be the last official, not the first, to propose shrinking the rights it guarantees.

Removing the Jury Does Not Remove the Corruption
Here is the flaw at the center of the proposal. If jurors can be bribed, intimidated, or pressured, what makes us confident a judge cannot?

Judges bring training and experience, and both matter. Neither is a vaccine against money or fear. A briber who today must reach several jurors would, under this plan, need to reach just one person. Concentrating the verdict in fewer hands does not shrink the target for corruption. It makes the target easier to find and more valuable to hit.

Consider, too, who would guard the new system: the same judiciary that, by the Chief Justice’s own account, has watched tampering spread across several counties. If the courts cannot protect a jury from a bribe, the public deserves to hear how those same courts will protect a judge from one.

The honest comparison is not between a corrupt jury and an ideal judge. It is between a jury system with its flaws and a bench system with its own. The advocates of abolition have described only one side of that comparison.

The President’s Charges, the President’s Judge
This is the part I find hardest to accept.

Under the Constitution, the President nominates judges and appoints them with the consent of the Senate. Judges then hold office during good behavior, and I do not claim that every appointed judge answers to the Executive Mansion. Many have shown real independence.

But picture a citizen charged in a politically sensitive case. The government brings the charges. A judge appointed by the President hears them. Under the Chief Justice’s proposal, that judge alone would decide guilt. What independent check would remain between that citizen and the power of the state?

That question is not academic in Liberia today. The same week the Chief Justice floated abolition, the Liberia Council of Churches warned that justice must not become an instrument of political revenge, as former ministers were convicted in a high-profile case. Whatever one thinks of any particular verdict, a country prosecuting its former officials should be strengthening the safeguards around those trials, not removing them.

For a family like mine, the question answers itself. We learned what it means to face the state when every lever of the process points in the same direction. The answer to that danger is more independent judgment in the courtroom, not less.

What Real Reform Would Look Like
If tampering is as widespread as the Chief Justice says, Liberians are owed a plan, not a surrender. Serious reform would start here:

Prosecute the tamperers. Every bribe has a giver and often a go-between. Identify them, charge them, and publish the outcomes. Tampering will continue as long as corrupting a jury costs less than answering for it.
Clean up jury selection. Make the compiling and drawing of jury lists transparent and auditable, so no one can handpick a compliant panel.
Protect jurors. Sequester or shield jurors in high-risk cases, restrict outside contact, and give them a safe way to report an approach.
Pay jurors fairly and on time. A juror who has gone unpaid for weeks and cannot afford the ride home is a juror someone else can rent.
Hold the whole system accountable. Jurors do not bribe themselves. Lawyers, court staff, and anyone else who brokers influence must face the same scrutiny.
Measure the results. Report how many tampering complaints are filed, investigated, and prosecuted, and whether the reforms are working.
Some of these steps need funding, and some need new legislation. All of them fit within the Constitution. None of them requires asking citizens to give up a right because the state failed to protect it.

The Test of a Constitutionalist
It is easy to praise the Constitution at ceremonies. The real test comes when upholding it demands discipline, money, and confrontation with powerful people. That is exactly when a Chief Justice is supposed to lead.

Liberians should not be forced to choose between a jury that can be bought and a judge they are simply asked to trust. That is a false choice. We should demand impartial juries, independent judges, an ethical bar, and court administrators who answer for what happens on their watch.

Mr. Chief Justice, investigate the corruption. Prosecute those responsible. Propose the safeguards and fight for the resources. But do not ask ordinary citizens to pay for the system’s failures with their constitutional rights.

I know what it feels like for a family to sit in a courtroom and believe the verdict was written before the trial began. Liberia’s task is to make that fear less justified, not to leave the next family with even fewer protections when they face the power of the state.

I strongly oppose Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay Sr.’s reported call to abolish Liberia’s trial jury system. Jury tampering demands thorough investigation and firm punishment. It does not justify taking a constitutional safeguard away from the Liberian people.

By Rufus S. Berry II, MBA
Anti-Corruption Advocate

One rotten apple, or several groups of compromised jurors must not be allowed to destroy an entire institution. Remove those who corrupt it, strengthen its safeguards and hold the perpetrators accountable.

Article 21(h) of Liberia’s Constitution protects an accused person’s right to an impartial jury trial in the criminal cases it specifies, subject to stated exceptions and an informed, express waiver. Abolishing that protection would require constitutional amendment, including a referendum. Failures in administering justice cannot simply erase constitutional rights.

The reported finding of jury tampering in the Samuel Tweah case deserves lawful accountability. It does not establish that Liberia’s entire jury system is beyond repair. This argument defends neither Tweah nor compromised jurors; it defends a principle that must endure regardless of political affiliation.

History offers powerful lessons. In the American South, all-white juries repeatedly denied justice to Black defendants and victims. Yet the United States retained jury trials and strengthened protections against discriminatory jury selection.

In 1955, an all-white, all-male jury acquitted the men who murdered 14-year-old Emmett Till, despite compelling evidence. That appalling injustice helped galvanize the civil rights movement without ending the jury system.

In 1964, two all-white juries failed to reach verdicts against Medgar Evers’s accused murderer. Thirty years later, a racially mixed jury convicted him. An institution that had failed justice ultimately helped deliver it.

Accountability must also reach the bench. Judges whose sudden wealth or extensive property holdings appear inconsistent with their lawful earnings should face impartial investigation, with full respect for due process. The scrutiny demanded of jurors must apply equally to those who judge them. Transferring verdicts entirely to judges cannot automatically eliminate corruption.

Liberia needs transparent jury selection, proper compensation, effective screening, protection against intimidation and strict controls on unauthorized contact.

The late Chief Justice Johnnie N. Lewis offers a constructive example. His administration delivered judicial complexes in Sinoe and Gbarpolu, new courthouses at the Temple of Justice, judicial training and public defense reforms, practical measures that strengthened the judiciary.

Mr. Chief Justice, build on that legacy. Reform the system, enforce accountability and restore public confidence.
Those who corrupt justice must not gain a second victory by causing the destruction of the institution they betrayed.

Punish jury corruption. Preserve the Liberian people’s rights.

Almost ten years ago, I heard words no one wants to hear:

“You have breast cancer.”

Despite that shock and the assessment that I had a locally advanced form of cancer, I was fortunate to have had regular self and clinical breast exams. In fact, I discovered my own tumor. And after that diagnosis, I had access to a healthcare system equipped to respond effectively, rapidly and decisively to my cancer. A comprehensive treatment plan was put in place immediately. And my doctors expected not only that I would survive, but that I would go on to live the full and healthy life that I have.

By Rhoda Weeks-Brown, contributing writer

I often think about how different my story would have been had I been diagnosed in Liberia, my country of birth, rather than in the United States.

Breast cancer does not care about borders or passports. It does not care whether a woman lives in Boston or Buchanan, New York or Nimba. The disease behaves much the same way everywhere.

What changes everything, however, is the system a woman finds herself in when those cancer cells begin to multiply.

Today, the tragedy is no longer that breast cancer cannot be treated effectively. In the vast majority of cases, it can. The tragedy is that access to life-saving detection and treatment remains profoundly unequal. The science has advanced but access has not. So, the same cancer in Monrovia has a very different likelihood of success than in Minneapolis.

Of course, breast cancer is not the only disease for which geography shapes outcomes. Where people live influences many aspects of health and longevity. However, breast cancer presents a compelling opportunity for action because the simple tools needed to save lives in most cases already exist. Greater awareness, early detection, timely diagnosis, and effective therapies and surgical procedures can all dramatically improve outcomes.

Like many other low-resource environments, however, Liberia faces persistent gaps in breast cancer awareness, screening, diagnostic services, and treatment. Too often, cancers are discovered only at advanced stages, when the chance of success is lower and options fewer. And even where treatment could make a difference, families often face financial and other barriers that make timely care difficult if not impossible.

The access gap is reflected in the numbers. Breast cancer now claims the lives of more women in Liberia than any other cancer. It is also the most prevalent cancer in the country, accounting for 21 percent of all cancers and almost 34 percent of cancers affecting women.

The regional picture is similarly grim, with an average five-year breast cancer survival rate of only 34 percent in West Africa, the lowest rate in Africa. The contrast with outcomes in higher-resource countries is stark: for example, U.S. five-year survival rates are almost 92 percent.

Those numbers represent far more than mortality statistics. They represent mothers raising children, entrepreneurs building businesses, professionals contributing their expertise, caregivers supporting families, and community leaders strengthening society. Every life lost prematurely leaves a void that ripples far beyond one individual.

Yet there is reason for hope. Because unlike some of the world’s most difficult health challenges, we already know what is needed in most cases to save the lives of those with breast cancer. Awareness and early detection work. Effective treatment and surgery work. Health systems equipped to respond work.

The question is whether we are willing to act where progress is possible. And, for me, that question is deeply personal.

My cancer was no more deserving of world-class care than that of my sisters in Liberia. My young sons were no more deserving of a mother who survives. My cancer did not know it was being treated inside a well-resourced healthcare system.

I simply benefited from the privilege of geography.

Once I fully understood that reality, survival became not just a gift, but a responsibility. I cannot repay that gift, but I can help extend it to others.

That conviction led me to establish The Aurelia & Edith Breast Cancer Foundation (AEBCF).

Our mission is simple but ambitious:

To help transform what a breast cancer diagnosis means for women in Liberia, and eventually other under-resourced countries, by advancing awareness and increasing access to life-saving screening, diagnosis, treatment, and supportive care.

We envision a future where breast cancer in Liberia is diagnosed earlier, where women understand the signs and symptoms of the disease, where screening and imaging are more widely accessible, where effective treatment is available, and where a diagnosis is met not with resignation but with confidence and hope.

We know that meaningful change is not a solo undertaking. That is why we are partnering with other non-governmental organizations, healthcare organizations and advocates, medical professionals, policymakers, community leaders, and supporters in Liberia and abroad. Together, we are laying the foundation for meaningful and sustainable change.

And we invite you to join us. Because change IS possible. Your support can help a woman detect cancer before it becomes too advanced to treat meaningfully. It can help a patient complete treatment instead of stopping when family resources are exhausted. It can ensure that more mothers return home to their children and more women have the chance not only to survive, but to thrive.

And, together, we can help create a future in which geography matters less, opportunity reaches further, and more women survive.

Because where a woman lives should not determine whether she lives.

 Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today (Globocan), Liberia 2024 estimates, version 1.0. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization (Globocan 2024). Available from: https://gco.iarc.who.int/today, accessed 4 September 2026.

 Five-Year Survival Outcomes for Breast Cancer Patients Across Continental Africa: A Contemporary Review of Literature with Meta Analysis. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.01.03.25319952; version posted January 7, 2025.

 American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2024–2025. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc. 2024. Available at: cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures/2024/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2024.pdf

When floodwater enters a home, a farmer loses a harvest, or the sea washes away land, families suffer. Children miss school, businesses lose income, and communities struggle to recover. Climate change increases these risks. Understanding it helps us protect ourselves and our country.

By Dr. Emmanuel King Urey Yarkpawolo
Executive Director, Environmental Protection Agency of Liberia

Climate change means lasting changes in the Earth’s temperatures and usual weather patterns. Weather is what happens today: sunshine, rain, or wind. Climate is the pattern we expect over many years, including our rainy and dry seasons.

The Earth is warming mainly because human activities release gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. Burning coal, petrol, diesel, and gas produces these gases. Cutting and burning forests adds to the problem because trees absorb carbon dioxide, one of the main gases warming the planet. These gases act like an extra blanket around the Earth, holding in more heat.

Liberia contributes very little to global emissions, yet we are highly vulnerable. Many Liberians depend on farming, live near the coast, or lack strong roads, proper drainage, and reliable basic services. These conditions make climate pressures harder to withstand.

Along our coast, rising sea levels increase the danger of flooding and erosion, threatening homes, roads, businesses, and livelihoods. For farmers, changing rainfall makes planting decisions harder. Heavy rain, dry spells, and higher temperatures can damage crops and reduce harvests. When farmers produce less, their incomes suffer and food supplies come under pressure.

Health and daily work are also affected. Extreme heat makes outdoor work more difficult. Floods can contaminate drinking water and damage roads, disrupting access to clinics, schools, and markets. Families with fewer resources often have the greatest difficulty recovering.

Not every flood or damaged shoreline is caused by climate change alone. Blocked drains, poorly planned construction, and destruction of wetlands can worsen the damage. We must address both climate change and the local practices that make communities more vulnerable.

We cannot end climate change overnight, but we can slow it down and reduce its harm. This means cutting the gases that cause warming while preparing for changes already happening. Cleaner energy, forest protection, stronger infrastructure, and better weather warnings all have a role.

The Government of Liberia, through the EPA and its partners, is already acting. Coastal protection projects in Sinoe County and metropolitan Monrovia are being implemented to reduce risks from coastal flooding and erosion and protect livelihoods. The Climate Information Systems project is strengthening weather monitoring and early warnings so that farmers, fishermen, and communities can better prepare for dangerous weather.

Government is also turning waste into a resource. Working with the Monrovia City Corporation, the Liberia Water and Sewer Corporation, and international partners, the EPA has helped establish a composting facility in Fiamah. It is designed to turn food scraps and other organic waste into compost that improves soil for farming. This shows how better waste management can support cleaner communities and agriculture.

The EPA is also enforcing environmental laws. Nationwide inspections have covered mining operations, industrial sites, coastal areas, and waste facilities across all 15 counties. Actions include stopping illegal operations, ordering corrections, and imposing fines. Protecting rivers, forests, wetlands, and farmland also helps communities withstand climate pressures. Development must provide jobs without sacrificing people’s health and livelihoods.

However, the needs exceed available resources. Coastal protection, drainage, weather services, and nationwide monitoring require sustained funding, equipment, trained personnel, and maintenance. Families also need affordable alternatives to activities that damage the environment.

Large emitters carry a greater responsibility. Countries and industries that have released the most warming gases, especially over many decades, should make deep and rapid emissions cuts. Financing tree planting elsewhere should accompany real reductions from their own factories, power plants, and transport systems.

Wealthy developed countries also have responsibilities to help poorer countries respond. The Paris Agreement requires developed countries to provide financial support to developing countries for reducing emissions and preparing for climate impacts. Liberia needs accessible funding, useful technology, and training that reach communities most at risk.

Major emitters should also support people facing losses that cannot be prevented, including destroyed homes and lost livelihoods. Liberia should not carry an unfair financial burden for a crisis it contributed little to creating. This is a matter of fairness.

Our small contribution to global emissions does not remove our own responsibilities. Citizens should join government’s efforts by reporting pollution, protecting public facilities, keeping rubbish out of drains and streams, avoiding waste burning, saving electricity, and following official weather warnings. Keeping drains clear will not stop global warming, but it can reduce local flood damage.

Businesses must respect environmental permits, reduce waste, and correct damage from their operations. Schools, religious institutions, traditional leaders, and the media can explain climate issues in everyday language and local languages. Communities should help shape projects affecting their homes and livelihoods, while holding government accountable for results.

Every Liberian deserves a safe home, clean water, dependable food, and a secure future. Government is taking action, but lasting progress requires citizens, businesses, and international partners to contribute. Large emitters must fulfil their responsibilities, and we must fulfil ours. Protecting Liberia is a shared responsibility.

Part I

A Personal Perspective After Close to 22 Years of Service at the FDA; Formally as a Communicator and presently Pretty Sitting as An Intergovernmental or Liaison Director

These roles and responsibilities provided spectacles that enabled me piercing through the various ministries, agencies, private sector communities and providing a diagnostic thoughts for readers to pick and intern connected to the

By Richie Garley Grear
Formerly: Communication Director
Presently: Intergovernmental or Liaison Director

After nearly 21 years serving the Government of Liberia through the Forestry Development Authority (FDA) as a communicator and intergenerational practitioner, I write not as a professional forester, but as an insider who has watched the sector struggle in silence.

At public hearings, in workshops, and on radio, I often hear Liberians accuse the FDA of underperformance, incompetence, or siding with logging companies against communities. As a long-serving staff, I could defend the institution, but the truth is deeper: the public does not know how much the fundamentals of the sector have been broken.

Where It Started

In 2003, the UN Security Council placed sanctions on Liberian timber. Those sanctions ushered in the forestry reforms of 2006. The intention was noble: to shift from traditional logging practices and ensure forests benefit the custodians – the forest communities.

But in changing the system, we removed the fundamentals that made the sector functional.

The Real Problem

Since the 2006 National Forestry Reform Law, every management at FDA has faced the same bottleneck and ended on the same square. It is not that Managing Directors do not understand the sector. The law itself ties their hands.

The autonomous status of FDA was taken away. Commercial, community, and conservation forestry were all carved into a rigid legal framework that never anticipated today’s reality. The result is like tying a person’s hands behind their back and pushing them into a river, then blaming them for not swimming.

Consequences are visible:

• Logging concessions cannot cope with harsh, unrealistic laws.
• Communities do not understand benefit-sharing and feel cheated.
• Revenue meant for affected communities is not remitted as expected.
• The EU Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) is struggling and now transitioning under a new name, EU Forest Partnership, without clarity.

Conclusion

No Managing Director, from 2006 to present, can function fully under the current arrangement. To call FDA nonfunctional without fixing the law is unfair.

Recommendations

1. Review the 2006 Law: The reform itself called for review after 5-10 years. That time passed long ago. Government must conduct a national Consultation, Evaluation and Validation of the law.
2. Restore Autonomy: Return full autonomous status to FDA to allow professional and financial independence.
3. Restore Fundamentals: Re-inject traditional best practices that worked – blending them with modern community forestry principles.
4. Clarify Community Benefits: Simplify the benefit-sharing mechanism so communities understand and actually receive what is due them.
5. Re-engage Partners: Conduct open dialogue with concessionaires, communities, and the EU on the Forest Partnership to avoid collapse.
6. National Forestry Dialogue: President Boakai should convene an all-stakeholder forestry conference to reset the sector.

The forest is Liberia’s greatest asset. If we want it to transform Liberia into a middle-income country, we must fix the foundation

The Altruism of Mr. Emmanuel Nuku Reeves, Sr.Chief Executive Officer, Reeves Investment Group, LLC & Atlantic Finance, LLC.

By Julius Konton, contributing writer

There are many ways to measure a successful life. Some count accumulated wealth, professional titles, institutional influence or public recognition.

Others measure success by the number of people whose lives have been made better because one person chose to act.

For years not too long to forget, I have come to know a nobleman called Emmanuel Nuku Reeves, sr. as a Liberia statesman, self-made businessman and consummate professional embodied with vast wisdom, unbending principles, distinguished public servant and leader, self-discipline, sturdy courage, unimaginable humility and the determined will to impact humility for the better.

The life of Mr. Emmanuel Nuku Reeves, Sr. belongs firmly in the latter category; one in which success has become a vehicle for service, and generosity a philosophy rather than a transaction.

For more than five decades, Nuku Reeves has built a life spanning public service, finance, entrepreneurship, maritime administration, philanthropy and community development.

Yet the most compelling dimension of his journey is not what he has acquired, but what he has consistently chosen to give away: knowledge, opportunity, financial resources, mentorship, institutional support and, perhaps most importantly, the confidence that someone else’s future is worth investing in.

His story is therefore not simply the biography of a successful Liberian businessman, but a study in the disciplined use of success.

A Liberian of Bassa heritage, Reeves began his public-service journey in the 1970s as a cadet at the Ministry of Finance in Liberia during the tenure of Stephen A. Tolbert as Minister.

Armed with a Bachelor’s degree in Accounting from the University of Liberia, he entered a professional world that would eventually take him beyond Liberia’s borders.

A scholarship enabled him to pursue graduate studies in Finance in the United States, followed by another Master’s degree in fulfilment of his dream to catapult himself in corporate America.

That trajectory, from cadet to finance professional, entrepreneur and corporate leader, could have produced a life primarily concerned with personal advancement.

Instead, he gradually turned his accomplishments into instruments for lifting others; a distinction quite central to understanding his true character.

The Philosophy of Giving Without a Ledger:The Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that character is not established by what a person occasionally does, but by the habits that person develops over time.

Virtue, in the Aristotelian sense, becomes visible through repeated action. Generosity is therefore not merely the act of giving; it is the disposition to recognize another person’s need and respond to it as a matter of character.

Mr. Reeves’ philanthropy fits this deeper conception of generosity.His record suggests a man who does not regard giving as a transaction requiring an immediate return.

His interventions have not been framed principally around votes, political office, electoral support or personal recognition.

Instead, they reflect a conviction that those who have overcome hardship and been given opportunities have a responsibility to make opportunities available to others.

This philosophy also resonates strongly with the African idea of Ubuntu, the understanding that human flourishing is interconnected, and that the advancement of one person acquires greater meaning when it contributes to the advancement of others.

In this sense, Mr. Reeves’ success is not treated as a private possession. It becomes social capital.

His life demonstrates an important proposition, that wealth can build a legacy when it is converted into human capacity, institutions and opportunity.

That is perhaps why his philanthropy has extended across education, health, community infrastructure, entrepreneurship, diaspora engagement and individual assistance.

He has not limited his giving to moments of public visibility.

Instead, his support has often taken the quieter form of creating possibilities for people who may never be able to repay him.

And that is what makes giving without expectation particularly powerful. It changes the meaning of generosity from exchange to responsibility.

From Enterprise to Social Purpose:As Chief Executive Officer of Reeves Investment Group, LLC. and Atlantic Finance, LLC.

In the United States, Mr. Reeves has combined private enterprise with a broader humanitarian outlook.

His professional experience in finance and the maritime domain have given him an understanding of capital, institutions and economic organization.

But his contribution extends beyond the conventional responsibilities of business leadership.

He has sought to use enterprise as a platform through which resources, knowledge and opportunity can reach people and communities that might otherwise remain excluded.

This is particularly significant in the context of Liberia, where private capital and diaspora resources can play an important complementary role in national development.

At a gathering of the Grand Kru County Development Association in the Americas, for example, though he contributed toward the association’s development initiatives, Mr. Reeves quickly entreated diaspora organizations to move beyond isolated charitable gestures toward sustainable and results-oriented development interventions.

Given Nuku, ambitious philanthropic and humanitarian agenda and drive for increased empathy for the less privilege, he recently, during the 179 independence day celebration, donated more than 500 bags of rice and dozens of mattresses to the old folks and disable community in Grand Bassa County, as his way of identifying with the less fortunate.

The distinction is important:There is a difference between giving someone temporary relief and helping to create the conditions under which people can become economically and socially self-sufficient.

Mr. Reeves’ approach increasingly reflects the latter, an understanding that philanthropy is most transformative when it strengthens systems, institutions and people.

His philosophy is therefore not simply to give, but to do so in ways that multiply the value of giving.Education:

The Investment That Outlives the Donor:Perhaps nowhere is this philosophy more visible than in education.

Through scholarship initiatives in Liberia and the diaspora, Nuku Reeves has helped thousands of people pursue academic and professional advancement.

But the significance of such support extends well beyond tuition.

A scholarship is an investment in human potential.

The student who remains in school may become a teacher.

The student who earns a professional qualification may become an entrepreneur, public servant, researcher or community leader.

One educational opportunity can therefore generate benefits far beyond the individual recipient.

This is why education occupies such an important place in Mr. Reeves’ philanthropic outlook.

It addresses an immediate need while simultaneously strengthening the human capital upon which communities and nations depend.

His support for schools, clinics and other community facilities follows the same logic.

Development is not experienced only through national statistics or major infrastructure projects.

It is experienced in the classroom where a child learns; in the clinic where a patient receives care; and in the community facility where citizens gather with dignity and purpose.

The physical structure matters. But the human possibility it creates matters more.A Liberian Identity That Extends Beyond Geography:

Although Liberia remains central to Mr. Reeves’ philanthropic commitment, his humanitarian outlook has never been confined exclusively to geography or ethnicity.

His assistance has extended to people of different backgrounds in the United States and elsewhere.

This broader outlook reflects an understanding of service as a universal human obligation.

At the same time, his role as a founding member of the United Bassa Organizations in the Americas (UNIBOA) demonstrates his commitment to diaspora organization and cultural continuity.

He is widely regarded as the organization’s highest individual contributor, supporting its efforts in education, community development, cultural preservation and service to Liberia.

The decision by UNIBOA to break ground for an event center in Grand Bassa county in his honor is significant because it reflects a relationship developed over years of contribution.

It recognizes not merely financial generosity but sustained investment in collective identity and community progress.

Similarly, the naming of the Emmanuel Nuku Reeves, Sr. Park in Grand Bassa provides a physical reminder of a legacy associated with community development rather than political office.

Such recognition does not define a person’s contribution.

It merely provides visible markers of something that is otherwise much harder to measure, and that is the cumulative effect of generosity on human lives.

A National Honor for a Lifetime of Citizenship:In July 2026, President Joseph Nyuma Boakai, Sr. admitted Hon. Reeves into the Most Venerable Order of the Star of Africa with the rank of Grand Commander.

The distinction carries particular weight because it recognizes a journey that began not in the corridors of power, but as a young cadet in government service.

Over more than five decades, Nuku Reeves developed a career in finance, maritime administration and private enterprise while continuing to direct resources toward education, community development, humanitarian assistance and institutional strengthening.

The honor consequently represents more than recognition of professional accomplishment. It affirms a broader conception of national service.

Citizenship is not exhausted by occupying public office.

A citizen can serve through business, scholarships, mentorship, community investment, institution-building, helping a young person remain in school, supporting a community project, using private success to create public value.

That is the more expansive meaning of Mr. Reeves’ story. The significance of the national honor was further deepened when President Boakai dedicated the Geneva Reeves Johnson Event Center in St. John, Grand Bassa County, in honor of Emmanuel Nuku Reeves’ late mother, just a day after honoring her son.

The gesture connected public recognition with family legacy.

It acknowledged not only what Hon. Reeves had achieved, but the familial values and influences that helped shape the man behind those achievements.

Development as Civic Partnership:Mr. Reeves’ philosophy of service also intersects naturally with Liberia’s development ambitions.

Human-capital development, economic inclusion, investment, stronger communities and broader opportunity cannot be produced by government alone.

Government has the primary responsibility for public policy and service delivery, but sustainable development requires a wider social compact involving citizens, businesses, diaspora organizations, communities and institutions.

Within that framework, Hon. Reeves’ support for Liberia’s development agenda can be understood less as political alignment and more as civic partnership.

His contribution is practical. Scholarships build human capital. Schools expand opportunity.

Clinics improve access to essential services. Community facilities strengthen local participation.

Business and financial initiatives create pathways for economic activity.

The underlying principle is straightforward: national development becomes more meaningful when private success is converted into public benefit.

For Liberia and other African countries, the idea of Africans contributing to Africa’s transformation is particularly consequential.

The diaspora represents not only a source of remittances, but also a reservoir of knowledge, capital, professional experience and institutional networks.

Hon. Reeves’ life illustrates what can happen when those resources are deliberately redirected toward the homeland.

He built a successful life abroad, but he did not sever the connection between success and origin.

Instead, he has continued to invest experience, resources and influence in Liberia.

The Measure of a Legacy:Ultimately, the most revealing measure of Emmanuel Nuku Reeves’ life will not be the number of buildings, parks or institutions that bear his name, nor will it be the titles, awards or professional distinctions attached to it.

The more meaningful measure is human: it is the student who remained in school, the young professional who received an opportunity, the family that received assistance during a difficult period, the community that gained a school, clinic or gathering place, the organization whose development initiative received support, the young person who gained confidence because someone with greater experience chose to believe in his or her potential.

These outcomes rarely make headlines individually. Yet, together, they constitute a legacy.

Nuku Reeves’ story is ultimately about what happens when achievement is accompanied by responsibility.

He has accumulated professional expertise, built businesses and achieved financial success.

But the greater achievement may be the decision to regard those accomplishments not as the final destination, but as resources that can be placed at the service of others.

That is where his character becomes most visible. Aristotle’s philosophy reminds us that character is formed through repeated acts.

Ubuntu reminds us that our humanity is enlarged through our relationship with the wellbeing of others.

Hon. Reeves’ life brings these two ideas into a distinctly Liberian story, that success acquires its deepest meaning when it becomes useful to someone beyond oneself.

In an age when philanthropy can sometimes be interpreted through the lens of influence, branding or political ambition, Hon. Reeves represents a different model; one in which giving does not require a ledger, service does not demand applause, and generosity does not have to be converted into political capital.

His most compelling philosophy appears to be remarkably simple: help where you can, invest in people, strengthen communities, and do not make the expectation of reciprocity the condition for giving.

That is a difficult philosophy to practice consistently, but it is a powerful way to build a legacy.

And perhaps that is the most fitting way to understand Mr. Emmanuel Nuku Reeves, Sr., not simply as a successful Liberian, businessman, philanthropist or recipient of one of the nation’s highest honors, but as a citizen who has spent much of his life demonstrating that the true value of success lies not in how much one can possess, but in how many lives one can help to rise. Simply put, he’s living simple, so that others can simply live!

Liberia’s History, Ethnic Relations, and the Responsibility of National Leaders

Introduction: Why I Am Raising This Concern

My concern about how Liberia’s history is presented to the public comes from my professional background in law enforcement, criminal investigation, criminal justice, and public safety.

By Charles E. King, contributing writer 

I have spent a considerable part of my professional life examining human behavior, the causes of conflict, the importance of evidence, and the circumstances under which disagreements can escalate into violence.

That experience has taught me an important lesson: Public disorder and violence do not always begin with weapons. Sometimes they begin with grievances, perceptions, accusations, mistrust, and the manner in which influential individuals communicate with the public.

For this reason, I am concerned about statements that present Liberia’s historical injustices in ways that may unintentionally encourage one community to blame another for the suffering of previous generations.

My concern was renewed by remarks attributed to former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf concerning the prolonged political and economic exclusion of Liberia’s indigenous majority

under earlier governments,

According to a report published by FrontPage Africa, Sirleaf connected this exclusion to the resentment that contributed to the military coup of 1980 and the civil wars that followed.

She stated:
“Exclusion breeds resentment. Resentment bred the problems of 1980.”

I do not dispute that exclusion occurred. Neither do I suggest that the injustices experienced by many Liberians under earlier governments should be concealed or minimized.

while delivering the keynote address at a Governance

Commission symposium on good governance in Monrovia.

My concern is different.

When we explain Liberia’s history primarily as the oppression of indigenous Liberians by Americo-Liberians, without also explaining the history of oppression among and within Liberia’s ethnic communities before the republic was established, are we giving the public the complete historical understanding necessary for national reconciliation?

And, from a public-safety standpoint, could such an incomplete account encourage resentment toward Americo-Liberians as a population rather than responsibility being assigned to particular governments, rulers, and individuals?

These questions deserve careful examination.

1. The Difference Between Historical Truth and Historical Completeness

A statement can contain historical truth while still presenting an incomplete picture.

It is historically appropriate to examine the concentration of political and economic power under governments dominated by Americo-Liberian elites.

However, Liberia’s history of inequality, enslavement, domination, and abuse of authority did not begin with the arrival of African-American settlers in the nineteenth century.

Dr. C. Patrick Burrowes makes this point in his book, Liberia and the Quest for Freedom: The Half That Has Never Been Told.

Burrowes challenges the practice of beginning Liberia’s history with the arrival of the repatriates while giving insufficient attention to the earlier history of the people and societies already occupying the territory.

His research documents slave trading, kidnapping, political domination, exploitation, and conflict among and within communities long before the founding of the Liberian republic.

That earlier history is essential to understanding the origins of some of the mistrust that later affected relations among Liberians.

If we omit this earlier history, the public may be left with the impression that the oppression of Liberians began with Americo-Liberians and that Americo-Liberians alone bear responsibility for the country’s historical divisions.

Such a conclusion would be incomplete.

2. Burrowes Identifies Particular Ethnic Communities Involved in the Slave Trade

One reason I consider Burrowes’ work especially valuable is that he does not treat all African communities as though they shared one identical historical experience.

He identifies particular rulers, trading networks, communities, and victims.

On pages 13–18 of his book, Burrowes describes slave-trading activities involving rulers and networks associated with the Vai communities along the Gallinas River.

He identifies Siaka of Gendama, head of the Massaquoi family, as a central figure in a trading network involving traditional rulers and European slave traders.

Burrowes also identifies kidnappers associated with coastal Vai, Bassa, Kru, and Grebo communities, as well as Manding and Fula raiders operating from the north.

He explains that interior communities were vulnerable to raids from different directions.

Among the communities he identifies as suffering substantial losses were the Gola, Dei, Mende, Bandi, Loma, Kpelle, Ma, and Dan.

These historical details are important.

They demonstrate that the experiences of the people living in the territory that became Liberia were not uniform.

Some individuals participated in capturing and selling others. Some were victims. Some communities experienced both situations at different times.

Identifying these historical activities does not make every Vai, Bassa, Kru, Grebo, Manding, or Fula person responsible for slave trading.

Neither does identifying communities that suffered losses mean that every member of those communities was exclusively a victim.

The same standard must apply when discussing Americo-Liberians.

We must identify the historical actors responsible for wrongdoing without assigning inherited guilt to everyone who shares their ethnic or social identity.

That is a principle of fairness and historical accuracy.
It is also consistent with the principles of criminal justice.
3. Oppression Also Occurred Within the Same Ethnic Communities
There is another important aspect of Liberia’s early history that deserves greater public attention.

Oppression did not occur only between different ethnic communities.

Burrowes documents situations in which powerful rulers exploited members of their own communities.

On pages 16–17, he explains that some rulers sold members of their own societies into slavery. In certain situations, accusations of witchcraft or adultery were used to justify enslavement.

The poor, vulnerable, and politically powerless could become victims of people who exercised authority over them.

Burrowes describes how Gola customary law could permit men accused of adultery under particular circumstances to be sold into slavery.

He also recounts an incident from Gola traditional history involving Chief Zolu Duma.

According to that tradition, Chief Zolu Duma enticed a group of girls associated with the Sande school aboard a slave ship under the pretense that they would dance for the crew. The account states that he had already arranged their sale.

Because this is presented as traditional history, its details should be described with that qualification.

Nevertheless, its significance within Burrowes’ historical argument is clear.

Some people who possessed political or traditional authority could use that authority to exploit the very people they were expected to protect.

This is important because it demonstrates that the abuse of power existed within certain African societies before the establishment of the Liberian republic.

It would be historically misleading to describe these societies as though all their members enjoyed equal power or protection.

At the same time, we must recognize that African political systems varied considerably. Not every ruler possessed unrestricted authority, and not every community followed the same practices.

The point is not to condemn traditional institutions generally.
It is to acknowledge the historical evidence of inequality and abuse wherever it occurred. 4. Burrowes’ Warning About Mistrust and Ethnic Division

One of Burrowes’ most important observations appears in his discussion of the continuing legacy of the slave trade.

On page 84, he writes:
“The slave trade did not create ‘tribalism,’ but it helped to enflame it.”

He explains that the capture and sale of human beings encouraged betrayal, suspicion, and mistrust.

Communities feared neighboring communities.
People could be kidnapped while traveling or working away from their homes.

In some cases, communities protected their own members while failing to condemn wrongdoing against outsiders.

Burrowes also describes how divisions developed within language groups, as neighboring settlements turned against one another.

This history is significant because it suggests that certain forms of mistrust and intercommunity hostility existed before the establishment of the republic.

These historical divisions cannot simply be attributed to Americo-Liberian political dominance.

Nor should we assume that every modern ethnic grievance is a direct inheritance from the slave trade.

Later political decisions, unequal treatment, personal experiences, and armed conflicts also contributed to Liberia’s divisions.

Nevertheless, Burrowes provides a compelling reason to examine the country’s earlier history before drawing conclusions about the origins of its ethnic mistrust.

5. The Lott Carey Example: What Happens When Crucial Facts Are Omitted

Burrowes provides an example that is particularly relevant to my concern about public communication.

On page 2 of his book, he discusses an account of Lott Carey, one of Liberia’s early African- American settlers.

Burrowes refers to a portrayal attributed to Dew Tuan Wleh Mayson in which Carey’s death in a gunpowder explosion was described as deserved because the gunpowder supposedly would have been used against native Africans.

But Burrowes identifies a crucial missing fact.

Carey was preparing to defend the settlement against slave catchers.

That information substantially changes the meaning of the event.

Without it, listeners might conclude that Carey was preparing to attack African people because they were African.

With it, the incident must be understood in the context of defending against slave-catching activity.

Burrowes’ passage does not itself establish that Carey fired a cannon at indigenous Africans. The distinction between preparing gunpowder and actually firing a cannon must be preserved.

From my criminal investigation background, this example is especially instructive.

Imagine an investigator receiving information that an armed individual was preparing to use weapons against another group.

Before reaching a conclusion, the investigator would need to establish the circumstances. Was the person preparing an unprovoked attack?
Was the person defending others?
Was there an immediate threat?

Who were the intended targets?

What evidence supports the allegations?

These questions can completely change the interpretation of the conduct.

Historical accounts deserve the same care.

When essential facts are omitted, the public may form conclusions that are inconsistent with the fuller evidence.

And when those conclusions concern ethnic identity, the consequences may extend beyond misunderstanding into resentment and collective blame.

I am not claiming, without further documentation, that the Lott Carey account caused a particular episode of ethnic violence.

I am identifying the danger illustrated by the omission.

6. The Americo-Liberian Period Must Be Examined Without Collective Condemnation

The fact that oppression existed before the founding of Liberia does not excuse the political inequalities that developed under later governments.

The historical exclusion of many indigenous Liberians from full political participation deserves serious examination.

Governments must be accountable for the institutions they create and the rights they deny.

But there is a fundamental difference between examining an unequal political system and condemning an entire population.

Not every Americo-Liberian held political office.

Not every Americo-Liberian benefited equally from the governing system.

Some Americo-Liberians opposed abuses and worked for reform.

Burrowes also describes cooperation between repatriates and African communities in resisting slavery.

These facts should form part of the historical record.

If we teach only domination and omit cooperation, we deny future generations an opportunity to understand how Liberians from different backgrounds also worked together.

The purpose of history should be to identify wrongdoing accurately, not to create permanent categories of oppressors and victims based on ancestry.

7. The Samuel Doe Government Demonstrates That Ethnic Oppression Did Not End in 1980

The events following the military coup of April 12, 1980, provide another important historical lesson.

Samuel Kanyon Doe, a member of the Krahn ethnic community, became Liberia’s leader after the overthrow of President William R. Tolbert Jr.

The coup ended the political dominance of the True Whig Party.

However, the replacement of the former political establishment did not eliminate inequality, repression, or ethnic favoritism.

During Doe’s government, members of his Krahn community gained disproportionate influence in important political and security institutions.

Following the unsuccessful coup attempt led by Thomas Quiwonkpa in November 1985, government forces carried out violent reprisals against members of the Gio (Dan) and Mano (Ma) communities, particularly in Nimba County.

These abuses were documented by human rights organizations.

During the civil war that followed, members of Krahn and Mandingo communities were also targeted by armed factions.

This history demonstrates that the abuse of political power cannot be understood exclusively as a conflict between Americo-Liberians and indigenous Liberians.

An indigenous-led government also practiced ethnic favoritism and persecuted members of other indigenous ethnic communities.

However, we must apply the same standard of responsibility consistently.
The crimes of Doe’s government should not be attributed to every Krahn person.

The crimes committed against Krahn and Mandingo civilians by armed factions should not be attributed to every Gio or Mano person.

Responsibility belongs to those who ordered, organized, assisted, or committed particular abuses. This is precisely why collective blame is dangerous.

When one community is treated as responsible for the crimes of its leaders, innocent people become vulnerable to retaliation.

8. The 1979 Rice Riots: A Historical Warning About Public Perception

Liberia’s Rice Riots of April 14, 1979, provide a particularly important example of the relationship between public perception, existing grievances, political communication, and public disorder.

During President Tolbert’s administration, the government considered increasing the price of rice.

The proposal generated widespread dissatisfaction.

There were also public allegations and perceptions that members of the Tolbert family or politically connected individuals would benefit financially.

Liberia’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission later discussed how those perceptions intensified public discontent.

The Commission also criticized the government’s failure to explain its proposed policy adequately and to address the growing dissatisfaction.

The Progressive Alliance of Liberia, led by Gabriel Baccus Matthews, organized opposition to the proposal.

A demonstration developed into serious disorder. Property was destroyed and looted.
Security forces fired on civilians.
People were killed and injured.

The lesson is not that a rumor alone caused the Rice Riots. The price proposal was real, economic grievances existed, political mobilization occurred, and the government’s response contributed substantially to the tragedy.

The lesson is broader.

Public perception, when combined with unresolved grievances, distrust, political mobilization, and failures of leadership, can become a significant factor in public disorder.

This is a lesson that law enforcement and public-safety professionals should not ignore.

9. Applying the Rice Riots Lesson to Historical Statements

The connection I draw between the Rice Riots and historical statements about Americo-Liberians concerns the influence of public perception.

In 1979, perceptions concerning who would benefit from a government policy contributed to growing public dissatisfaction.

When influential political figures discuss Liberia’s historical inequalities, audiences may similarly develop perceptions about which communities were responsible for their ancestors’ suffering.

If the discussion focuses exclusively on Americo-Liberian domination, while omitting earlier oppression among Vai, Bassa, Kru, Grebo, Gola, and other communities, as well as later abuses under Doe’s government, listeners may receive an incomplete understanding.

The risk is that historical responsibility may be transferred from particular leaders and institutions to an entire community.

That does not mean that Sirleaf’s remarks caused violence or that her intentions were hostile.

It means that public-safety professionals have reason to examine how such messages are interpreted, especially in societies where ethnic grievances remain unresolved.

The Rice Riots teach us that leaders should not dismiss the possible consequences of public perceptions merely because their own statements or policies have a legitimate basis.

10. Liberia’s Interrupted Education Makes Historical Communication Especially Important

Liberia’s civil conflicts, from 1989 to 2003, caused enormous disruption to education, families, public institutions, and community life.

Many Liberians experienced interrupted schooling, displacement, poverty, and the loss of educational opportunities.

I would not claim without reliable statistics that 90 percent of the population has received no formal education.

Nevertheless, the prolonged disruption of education is an important part of Liberia’s postwar experience.

When people have had limited access to formal historical education, they may have fewer opportunities to compare different historical accounts, examine documentary evidence, or identify omissions in public statements.

This does not mean they are unintelligent or incapable of independent judgment.

It means that leaders, educators, and public commentators should take particular care to provide adequate historical context.

In a society where oral communication, radio discussions, political speeches, and community conversations are important sources of information, the manner in which history is communicated deserves careful attention.

The responsibility of an influential speaker is not simply to repeat a historically accurate statement.

It is also to consider whether the statement, without adequate explanation, could create a misleading impression.

11. The Difference Between Criticizing a Government and Blaming a Community

This distinction lies at the center of my concern.

There is a difference between saying:

Certain Americo-Liberian-dominated governments maintained political systems that excluded many indigenous Liberians.

And saying:

Americo-Liberians oppressed indigenous Liberians.

The first identifies governments and political institutions.

The second may be interpreted as assigning responsibility to an entire population.

Likewise, there is a difference between saying:

Certain Vai rulers and trading networks participated in slave trading.

And saying:

The Vai were slave traders.

There is a difference between saying:

Doe’s government and particular security forces persecuted Gio and Mano civilians.

And saying:

The Krahn oppressed the Gio and Mano.

These distinctions are not merely academic.

They help prevent innocent people from being held responsible for the conduct of others who share their identity.

In criminal justice, we do not establish responsibility through ethnicity.

We examine conduct, evidence, circumstances, and the actions of identifiable individuals.

Our treatment of history should follow a similar principle.

12. Historical Communication as a Public-Safety Responsibility

My professional concern is that repeated messages of collective blame can contribute to conditions in which ethnic hostility becomes more acceptable.

The possible progression deserves attention.

First, a historical narrative repeatedly identifies one community with oppression.

Second, listeners begin to treat the wrongdoing of particular historical actors as the wrongdoing of an entire population.

Third, resentment develops or existing resentment becomes stronger. Fourth, stereotypes and hostile generalizations become normalized.

Finally, in the presence of political mobilization, threats, weak institutions, or other aggravating circumstances, hostility may contribute to intimidation or violence.

This is a potential risk pathway, not an automatic sequence.
It would be wrong to assume that every controversial historical statement will produce violence.

It would also be wrong to ignore the role that inflammatory narratives can play in environments already affected by mistrust.

Law enforcement professionals are trained to recognize risk factors before violence occurs. The purpose of prevention is not to wait until people are injured or property is destroyed.

It is to identify conditions that could contribute to disorder and encourage responsible action before those conditions deteriorate.

13. This Is Not an Argument for Suppressing Historical Truth

I want to make one point absolutely clear. I am not advocating censorship.

I am not suggesting that Liberians should stop discussing the exclusion of indigenous communities under Americo-Liberian-dominated governments.

I am not attempting to defend historical wrongdoing.

Nor am I arguing that the earlier participation of some African rulers in slavery somehow cancels or excuses injustices committed by later governments.

My argument is that historical truth must be presented with sufficient completeness to avoid creating new injustices through collective blame.

We should discuss the actions of Americo-Liberian political elites.
We should discuss the actions of particular Vai rulers and slave-trading networks.

We should examine the historical conduct of individuals associated with Bassa, Kru, Grebo, Manding, Fula, and other communities wherever reliable evidence supports doing so.

We should examine abuses within Gola society, including the examples presented by Burrowes.

We should examine the experiences of Gola, Dei, Mende, Bandi, Loma, Kpelle, Ma, and Dan communities that suffered from slave raiding.

We should examine the Doe government’s persecution of Gio and Mano civilians.

And we should examine the atrocities later committed against Krahn, Mandingo, and other civilians.

No community should be placed beyond historical examination.

Equally, no community should be collectively condemned for the actions of particular members.

14. What I Would Ask of Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf

My concern about Sirleaf’s remarks is not whether the political exclusion she described occurred.

The historical record supports serious criticism of inequalities under earlier Liberian governments.

My question concerns the completeness of the explanation when such history is presented to the public.

If we tell Liberians that exclusion produced resentment and contributed to the events of 1980, should we not also explain that the earlier history of the territory included exploitation, enslavement, and unequal political power among and within African communities?

Should we not explain that the overthrow of the Americo-Liberian-dominated political establishment did not eliminate ethnic oppression?

Should we not acknowledge that the Doe government, despite being led by an indigenous Liberian, also persecuted members of other indigenous communities?

And should we not explain that the country’s civil wars demonstrated the dangers of treating entire communities as enemies because of the actions of particular leaders or armed groups?

These questions are not intended to deny the suffering of any population.

They are intended to encourage a more complete understanding of how Liberia’s divisions developed.

It is also important to distinguish Sirleaf’s particular remarks from her entire record. A speech focusing on one historical period is not necessarily intended to provide a complete history of Liberia.

Nevertheless, when such statements are repeated or treated as comprehensive explanations, the omitted context deserves attention.

15. A Responsibility Shared by Historians, Political Leaders, Educators, and the Media

Responsible historical communication should not depend on political affiliation.

The same standard should apply to everyone.

Historians should identify their evidence and acknowledge uncertainty.

Political leaders should avoid language that transfers the wrongdoing of particular officials to entire populations.

Educators should explain the broader historical circumstances surrounding controversial events.

Journalists and radio presenters should distinguish documented facts from allegations, interpretations, and political claims.

Community leaders should discourage the use of history to justify present-day hostility.

And public-safety professionals should pay attention to threats, organized intimidation, dehumanizing language, and other observable warning signs of possible violence.

These responsibilities can be fulfilled without suppressing criticism, political disagreement, or the legitimate discussion of historical injustice.

16. The Lessons I Believe Liberia Must Teach Its Young People

The history of Liberia should help young people understand that:

1. Slavery, kidnapping, and exploitation existed in the region before the establishment of the Liberian republic.
2. Particular rulers and networks associated with identifiable ethnic communities participated in these activities, while other members of those communities suffered from them.
3. Some rulers exploited members of their own communities, demonstrating that domination was not confined to relationships between different ethnic groups.
4. Americo-Liberian-dominated governments maintained political inequalities that deserve honest historical examination.
5. The 1980 coup did not end the abuse of power, and the Doe government subsequently engaged in ethnic favoritism and persecution.
6. Liberia’s civil wars demonstrated the devastating consequences of ethnic targeting and retaliatory violence.
7. Historical responsibility must be based on evidence and identifiable conduct, not ancestry or ethnic identity.
8. The purpose of studying history should be to understand the past and prevent the repetition of injustice—not to teach new generations to hate one another.

Conclusion: Liberia Must Not Turn Historical Grievances Into Inherited Enmity

I return to the central concern that prompted this commentary.

Liberia has already paid an enormous price for political violence, ethnic mistrust, and the abuse of power.

We cannot afford to treat the public presentation of our history as a matter of little consequence.

Words do not automatically cause violence. Historical grievances must be discussed openly, and no government or community should be shielded from legitimate criticism.

But words can influence perceptions. Perceptions can affect attitudes.

And, under certain conditions, collective blame and hostile political mobilization can contribute to violence.

The events of April 14, 1979, demonstrate the importance of public perception, political communication, existing grievances, and responsible government action.

The history of Samuel Doe’s administration demonstrates that oppression can continue even after one ruling establishment has been replaced by another.

And the research of Dr. C. Patrick Burrowes reminds us that the roots of Liberia’s mistrust and inequality extend much further into the past than the establishment of the republic.

My concern, therefore, is not to determine which ethnic community deserves blame.
It is to insist that no community should inherit collective guilt for the wrongdoing of

particular rulers, governments, or individuals.

As a former law enforcement and criminal justice professional, I believe that accurate and responsible historical communication is not only an educational obligation.

It is also an important contribution to public safety, conflict prevention, and national reconciliation.

Liberia must teach its history truthfully, completely, and responsibly—not so that one community may stand in judgment of another, but so that future generations may recognize injustice, reject collective blame, and refuse to repeat the violence of the past.

That is the responsibility we owe to our history.
And, more importantly, it is the responsibility we owe to Liberia’s future generations.

Finally, the internet was buzzing with surprise and indignation about Former President statement. What I found most interesting and shows when those who knows better – those who are among the very family her statement refers –her own family members – not one of them dare say anything to her but remain silent, This is what we will pass on to the next generation – keep silent and smile and everything will be OK. No it will not, because the snake has not been buried, it will raise its ugly head again in the future, because we continue to deny the “Half That Was Never Told”.

Because if the masses knew, they would ask question. So, the technique is, anytime someone brings out the “Half that was never told, someone says – Keep it from the masses so their eyes do not open so wide!’

Kind Regards

Charles E. King, contributing, Former Deputy Director of Police for Criminal Investigation Affairs, Liberia National Police

Principal Historical References

• C. Patrick Burrowes, Liberia and the Quest for Freedom: The Half That Has Never Been Told (2019), particularly pp. 1–2, 13–18, 70–71, and 83–85.
• Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia, Consolidated Final Report, discussion of the April 14, 1979 Rice Riots and Liberia’s political conflicts.
• Human Rights Watch / Africa Watch, reports on abuses under Samuel Doe and the Liberian civil war, 1990–1993.
• U.S. Department of State, historical country reports concerning the Doe administration and ethnic conflict.
• U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, memorandum dated April 27, 1979, concerning the Rice Riots.
• FrontPage Africa, report of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s remarks on exclusion, governance, and Liberia’s political history.