IN NINE DAYS, ministers, mining executives, bankers and development partners will gather for the Liberia International Mining and Energy Conference and Expo, LIMEC 2026. There will be keynote speeches, gala dinners, signing ceremonies and a great many photographs.

LIBERIANS HAVE SEEN this film before.

WE HAVE WATCHED investment forums come and go, leaving behind glossy brochures, memoranda of understanding that quietly expire, and officials who return from the stage with little more than a social media album. We cannot afford for LIMEC to join that list. The stakes are too high, and the moment is too rare.

TO HIS CREDIT, Mines and Energy Minister R. Matenokay Tingban has set the right standard. LIMEC, he said at the launch, “must be measured not only by the quality of its discussions, but also by the investments it attracts, the partnerships it builds, the jobs it helps create, and the lasting benefits it delivers to the Liberian people.”

WE AGREE. AND we intend to hold the government to its own yardstick.

A history we must not repeat

LIBERIA KNOWS BETTER than most countries what it means to be rich in minerals and poor in outcomes. In the decades when LAMCO and Bong Mines made this nation one of the world’s leading iron ore exporters, the wealth flowed out through the ports of Buchanan and Monrovia while much of the population remained in poverty. That gap between the riches beneath our soil and the lives lived above it helped sow the grievances that tore the country apart.

TODAY, THE NUMBERS are moving again. ArcelorMittal has invested some $3.5 billion and is ramping toward 18 million tons of iron ore this year. A U.S. company has secured access to our railway to carry Guinean ore to Buchanan. New producers are lining up. The IMF projects 5.5 percent growth, driven by mining. Organizers say more than $3 billion in fresh investment is on the horizon.

THIS IS PRECISELY when a country either breaks with its past or repeats it.

What the government must do

FIRST, PUBLISH EVERYTHING that is signed. Every memorandum, letter of intent and agreement concluded at LIMEC should be made public, with named parties, dollar values and timelines. Ninety days after the conference, the Ministry of Mines and Energy should report to the Legislature and the public on what has moved from paper to ground. An MOU that is never published is not an achievement; it is a photograph.

SECOND, BE TRANSPARENT about the conference itself. LIMEC is being organized with a private events firm, AME Trade Ltd, under an agreement that entitles the Liberia Chamber of Mines to a share of the net profits. That arrangement may be perfectly sound. But Liberians deserve to know what the event costs, who is paying, who the sponsors are, and whether any public money is involved. A conference about transparent resource governance should practice it.

THIRD, FINISH THE rules before selling the game. In February, the minister said a new mining code would be ready within three months. Eight months later, lawmakers are still holding hearings and passing piecemeal amendments. Serious investors do not fear firm rules; they fear uncertain ones. The government should use LIMEC to present a clear timetable for a comprehensive mining law — including how proposed state equity stakes will apply, and to whom — rather than leaving the biggest question in the room unanswered.

FOURTH, GIVE HOST communities a seat, not a souvenir. The people of Grand Cape Mount have complained of homes cracked by blasting, polluted waterways and unfulfilled promises of schools, clinics and jobs. Nimba communities have their own long list. Community leaders, civil society, artisanal miners and county lawmakers belong in the conference hall and on the panels — not outside the gate. Investors should hear directly from those who will live with the consequences of their projects.

FIFTH, DEMAND A fair share — through the law. Gold prices have climbed to historic highs while Liberia’s largest gold producer pays a flat 3 percent royalty. Senators are right to ask whether such terms still serve the national interest. But the answer must come through lawful review and transparent negotiation, not public threats that frighten away the very investment we seek. Fairness and predictability are not opposites; the government must deliver both.

SIXTH, MAKE LOCAL content measurable. Speeches about Liberian jobs, Liberian suppliers and Liberian managers are cheap. Targets are not. Every new investment showcased at LIMEC should come with published commitments on local hiring, procurement and skills training, and a mechanism to check whether they are met.

SEVENTH, FIX THE power problem. Barely a third of Liberians have electricity. Without reliable, affordable power, the minister’s call to move beyond raw extraction toward processing and value addition will remain a slogan. Energy deals announced at LIMEC should be judged by megawatts delivered and households connected, not by announcements made.

FINALLY, NO RUSHED deals. Half of Liberia’s forested land is already covered by proposed or active mining licenses. Nothing should be signed in the excitement of a conference that bypasses environmental review or legislative scrutiny. The investors worth having will wait for due process.

Not a stage for politicians

WE ALSO SAY plainly: LIMEC must not become a showcase for officials hungry for headlines. Liberians do not need another procession of oversized delegations, generous per diems and staged handshakes. They need a working conference — technical, focused and accountable.

THE TRUE TEST will not be held at a hotel near Monrovia on October 28 and 29. It will be held a year from now in Yekepa, Kinjor, Buchanan and Gbarnga: in the jobs that exist, the clinics that open, the rivers that run clean, the lights that come on and the revenues that show up in the national budget.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS promised Liberians that this time will be different. LIMEC is its chance to prove it. We will be watching — and so will the Liberian people.

A Senate committee wants US$792,552 in the FY2027 budget for pay raises inside the Senate, with 70 percent going to senators’ personal offices. With half of Liberia below the poverty line and senators unwilling to cut their own US$8,000 monthly pay, the Pro Tempore should shelve the plan and put the poorest first.

SOMEWHERE IN MONROVIA this morning, a mother is deciding which of her children eats today. She sells pepper and bitter balls in the market, earns less than the US$5.50 a day the law says an unskilled worker should get, and spends most of it on a cup of rice. Her children’s school fees are overdue. Her story is not unusual. It is the story of half of Liberia.

AGAINST THAT BACKDROP, the Liberian Senate’s Committee on Rules, Order and Administration wants US$792,552 more in next year’s budget to raise salaries inside the Senate. Some of the raises run as high as 71 percent. The proposal now sits on the desk of President Pro Tempore Nyonblee Karnga-Lawrence, who ordered the committee to draw it up.

WE URGE HER, plainly and respectfully: put the brakes on it.

A Raise for the Senators’ Own Offices

THE COMMITTEE CALLS its plan a standardization of staff pay. Look closer. Seventy percent of the money, US$554,712, goes to the personal staff of senators: the chiefs of staff, political advisors and assistants each senator hires and keeps. The 29 chiefs of staff alone would cost taxpayers an extra US$166,692 a year. This is, in effect, a raise for the senators’ own political operations, paid for by a public that is already stretched to breaking.

IT COMES FROM a body whose members each earn US$8,000 a month, more than 50 times what a security guard or market worker is legally owed. Since 2020, a bill to cut that pay to US$5,000 has gathered dust. When it resurfaced last year, senators answered with murmurs of resistance. A Senate that will not trim its own salary has no moral standing to ask taxpayers for more, whatever the label on the envelope.

AND LOOK AT who gains most. The Senate’s Legal Counsel would jump from US$1,704 to US$2,920 a month. An executive secretary would get US$96. The committee cites the 2019 Remuneration Standardization Act, whose stated purpose is to narrow the inequality gap in government. Its own figures nearly double the gap between the top and bottom of its staff list. That is not standardization. It is the same old pyramid, made taller.

WE DO NOT dismiss the staff’s grievance. Many have not seen a raise since 2015, and they have every right to fair pay under the law. But so do the teachers whose US-dollar salaries went unpaid for months, the nurses now demanding a US$500 floor, and the civil servants still waiting for the harmonization cuts to be reversed. The US$792,552 the committee wants could pay 440 civil servants at the US$150 government minimum for a full year. Fairness that starts at the top of Capitol Hill never seems to reach the bottom.

A Test of Leadership

MADAM PRO TEMPORE, this decision is yours to shape. You commissioned the plan, and the Senate leadership will decide whether it goes into the FY2027 budget the Executive must submit by October 31.

IT IS NO secret in Monrovia that many see you as a future contender for the Presidency. If that ambition is real, there is no better place to show the country what kind of leader you would be. Liberians will remember who stood with them when a cup of rice cost more than a day’s wage, and who stood with the comfortable few.

TO RAISE PAY in the halls of the Capitol while families skip meals, while children sit at home for lack of fees, while millions live below the poverty line, is a slap in the face of the Liberian people. It tells them their suffering does not count.

WE ASK THE Senate leadership to do five things:

1. Shelve this package in its current form and keep it out of the FY2027 budget.

2. Reject any raise that benefits senators’ offices while senators refuse to cut their own pay.

3. Pass the long-stalled bill reducing senators’ salaries, and let the savings fund the lowest-paid Senate workers first.

4. Publish the Executive benchmarks the committee claims to match, so the public can judge whether a US$2,920 salary is justified.

5. Put teachers, nurses and the lowest-paid civil servants at the front of the line when new revenue is shared.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS just crossed US$1 billion in domestic revenue for the first time. President Joseph Boakai has said that money should improve the lives of ordinary Liberians. The Senate should not be the first to reach into that pot for itself.

MADAM PRO TEMPORE, the people are watching. Put the brakes on this raise, and put the bottom of the ladder first.

Senator Amara Konneh’s warning in Washington that Liberia stands at its “most dangerous point since the war and Ebola” should alarm us at home as much as it alarmed his hosts abroad. Opaque mining deals and a surging cocaine trade are buying influence inside our institutions, one official at a time. The reforms he proposes are overdue. But they will mean nothing unless the Legislature passes them in Monrovia, and unless our partners in Washington back them with targeted support rather than speeches.

FOR TWO DECADES, Liberia has told the world a story of recovery: from war to peace, from Ebola to resilience, from strongman rule to two peaceful transfers of power. That story is true, and it was hard-won. But a nation can lose in the shadows what it won in the open. Konneh’s message is that the threat today comes in a briefcase, not a gun. Sometimes the briefcase holds a concession agreement. Sometimes it holds cocaine.

CONSIDER THE MINING sector. It accounts for 12 percent of the economy and nearly two-thirds of export earnings. Yet, by the senator’s count, less than 3 percent of that wealth flows directly to the communities that live beside the pits, the rail lines and the poisoned creeks. Twenty-five-year agreements are negotiated by a handful of officials in Monrovia, then ratified by a legislature whose members, Konneh says, are softened up with jobs, scholarships and “facilitation fees.” Meanwhile, community members who protest environmental damage, in Kinjor and elsewhere, find themselves charged with “economic sabotage.”

THIS KIND OF capture is the more dangerous of the two because it is legal. Nobody goes to jail for signing a bad contract. The damage is spread across a generation, and the bill arrives long after the signatories have retired.

THEN THERE IS cocaine. This year alone, authorities seized 237 kilograms at Roberts International Airport and 3.9 metric tons in Duazon, a haul valued at $317 million. That figure is several times what this country spends on the health of its people. Money on that scale does not merely pass through a country. It buys customs officers, police commanders, evidence clerks and, eventually, elections.

WE HAVE ALREADY seen the first signs. Two agents of the Liberia Drug Enforcement Agency were convicted last month of reselling seized cocaine. A senior police commander was dismissed over a bribe in the same network. The people entrusted with fighting the trade were working for it.

THE PROSECUTION OF former Vice President Jewel Howard-Taylor will test whether the state can handle a case at the very top. She denies the charges, and she is entitled to the presumption of innocence. But the government’s decision to destroy the 3.9 tons of cocaine before trial was reckless. Unless the evidence is preserved and the process is beyond reproach, a conviction will be called a vendetta, an acquittal will be called a cover-up, and justice will lose either way. Liberians deserve a trial that can withstand scrutiny, whatever its outcome.

KONNEH’S PROPOSALS DESERVE serious attention:

• Publish every mining agreement, amendment and beneficial owner before ratification, not after.

• Value iron ore independently, as Botswana did with diamonds.

• Send a fixed share of royalties directly to the districts.

• Preserve drug evidence until final judgment.

• Subject airport, port and enforcement officers to lifestyle audits.

• Pass an unexplained-wealth law with teeth.

NONE OF THIS is radical. All of it is overdue.

BUT WE MUST also say this plainly: the Legislature that Konneh describes as being bought is the same Legislature he sits in. Reform cannot simply be a speech delivered in Washington. It has to be a bill passed in Monrovia. If the Senate is serious, it should begin by refusing to ratify any mining agreement that has not been published in full. That decision needs no foreign aid and no American permission. It needs only the votes.

TO OUR FRIENDS in Washington, the senator’s appeal is fair. The United States stood with Liberia through war, reconstruction and Ebola. It should not now confine its interest to drug busts and photo opportunities. Targeted help would make a difference: court monitoring, forensic audits of the biggest concessions, financial investigators on specific cases, and sanctions on the enablers who park stolen wealth in American real estate. If America turns away, others with fewer scruples will take its place. As Konneh put it, cartels do not ask about human rights.

LIBERIA’S NATURAL WEALTH was meant to be the foundation of our self-reliance. Instead it risks becoming the means by which our institutions are bought, one official at a time. The law must apply equally to the baggage handler and the multinational, to the police driver and the former vice president.

LIBERIA IS NOT yet captured. It is up to us, and to our partners, to make sure “not yet” never becomes “too late.”

Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay Sr. wants to end jury trials because jurors are being bribed and tampered with. But report after report, at home and abroad, has found the same rot on the bench. Taking the verdict away from twelve citizens and handing it to one judge would not end corruption in our courts. It would concentrate it. The call is wrong, and the Legislature should reject it.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE is right about one thing: jury tampering is real. Anyone who has followed a high-profile trial in Monrovia has heard the whispers of jurors reached, paid or pressured. When he used the opening of the Supreme Court’s October term to say that such practices threaten fair trials and public confidence, he was naming a genuine problem.

BUT HIS CURE is worse than the disease. Abolishing jury trials, with President Joseph Boakai and senior officials looking on, would take power from ordinary citizens and give it to the one part of the system that has the least public trust: the judges themselves.

THE EVIDENCE IS not rumor. It is the consistent finding of international observers for more than a decade.

THE U.S. STATE Department’s most recent human rights report on Liberia states that “the government generally did not respect judicial independence and impartiality.” It says judges “reportedly solicited bribes to try cases, grant bail to detainees, award damages in civil cases,” and to acquit defendants. It also notes that “the outcome of some trials appeared to be predetermined,” especially when the accused were politically connected or socially prominent.

THE BERTELSMANN TRANSFORMATION Index, a German assessment of governance in developing countries, has described Liberia’s justice system in the same terms. “Corruption of judges and juries constitutes a major obstacle to fair and transparent trials,” it found. Note the order of those words: judges first. The same index observed that “corruption is endemic despite salary hikes for judges and magistrates.”

THE NORWEGIAN-BASED U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre describes a judiciary that is “formally independent but characterised by severe functional deficits.” It says judges and magistrates are “reportedly subject to undue influence from the private sector and government officials.” It also finds that the bodies meant to discipline erring judges, the Judicial Inquiry Commission and the Grievance and Ethics Committee, “lack appropriate guidelines to deliver their mandates effectively.”

LIBERIANS THEMSELVES AGREE. In Afrobarometer’s latest survey, 52 percent of citizens said most or all judges and magistrates are corrupt. That is a majority of the public declaring no confidence in the very officials the Chief Justice would now make sole deciders of guilt and innocence.

SO WE ASK: if jurors can be bought, what makes a judge harder to buy? The arithmetic runs the other way. To fix a jury verdict, a corrupt party must reach several citizens drawn at random, who meet once, then go home. To fix a judge-alone verdict, they must reach one official who sits on the same bench, case after case, year after year. Corruption becomes cheaper, quieter and more durable.

THE JURY IS also one of the few places where ordinary Liberians hold real power in the justice system. It is the community’s conscience in the courtroom. Take it away, and the poor man in the dock faces the state, and whatever pressures the state can bring, with no one from his own community between them.

THERE IS ALSO the matter of law. The right to trial by jury is written into Article 21(h) of our Constitution. It cannot be repealed by a speech or a judicial directive. It would require a constitutional amendment approved by the people in a referendum, and we doubt Liberians will vote to surrender it.

WE HAVE SEEN this year how quickly jury disputes become political. In the Capitol Building arson trial, an entire jury panel was dissolved mid-trial at the prosecution’s request, and the case is now stalled before the Supreme Court. That episode exposed weaknesses in how juries are selected, managed and protected. It did not prove that judges alone would do better.

IF THE CHIEF Justice wants to restore confidence in the courts, there is a reform agenda waiting for him:

• Protect jurors in sensitive trials through sequestration, anonymity and fair pay.

• Prosecute those who bribe jurors, not only the jurors who take the money.

• Require judges to declare their assets publicly and submit to lifestyle audits.

• Give the Judicial Inquiry Commission teeth, and publish its findings.

• Assign cases at random, so no judge is hand-picked for a politically sensitive trial.

• Open courtrooms to independent monitors and publish transcripts.

NONE OF THESE requires amending the Constitution. All of them would strengthen the integrity of the system the Chief Justice says he wants to protect.

THE JUDICIARY CANNOT credibly ask the public to trust judges more while international reports, and the public’s own verdict, say they deserve to be trusted less. Clean up the bench first. Then let us talk about the jury.

UNTIL THEN, CHIEF Justice, the answer is no.

Rev. Dr. Samuel Reeves warned on Sunday that silence is not reconciliation and stability is not justice. Two days earlier, a courtroom clash between Judge Ousman F. Feika and Atty. Gbawou Kowou halted an economic sabotage trial and showed how much of Liberia’s energy is spent on battles that leave no one better off.

ON SUNDAY, FROM the pulpit of Providence Baptist Church, Rev. Dr. Samuel Reeves told Liberia something it needed to hear. “The first generation after conflict must not be satisfied merely because the guns became silent,” he said. “Silence is not the same as reconciliation. Stability is not the same as justice.”

IT WAS A sermon about resurrection, but it was also a diagnosis. Reeves argued that a nation can rebuild roads and still need to rebuild trust. A nation can construct buildings and still need to construct character.

TWO DAYS EARLIER, a few hundred yards away at the Temple of Justice, Liberia offered a near-perfect illustration of what he meant.

ON FRIDAY, CRIMINAL Court “C” Judge Ousman F. Feika dismissed a complaint by defense lawyer Gbawou Kowou. Kowou had accused the State’s asset recovery task force of summoning and pressuring defense witnesses. The judge found the allegation “absolutely false and misleading” and referred Kowou to the Supreme Court’s Grievance and Ethics Committee, with a strong recommendation that his license be suspended for a full year.

HOW DID IT come to this?

ON A SUNDAY afternoon, defense witnesses who had already testified ended up at the prosecutor’s offices. The court says that was a mix-up by the group’s own administrator. Their phones were taken at the door. Kowou, alarmed, went to the compound and started filming on Facebook live. Task force staff tried to stop him, and a scuffle followed. That night he took his accusations to a television talk show, despite a court gag order. By Monday, the trial was halted, the jury sent home, and a week of court time was spent investigating the lawyers instead of the case.

THE TASK FORCE is prosecuting alleged economic sabotage involving public money, and Liberians deserve to know the outcome. Instead, the country got a week-long fight about a fight.

THERE IS ENOUGH blame to go around. A lawyer who believes his witnesses are being intimidated has a duty to raise it, but in court first, not on a live stream. A prosecuting office that summons people to its premises on a Sunday should know exactly who is walking through its gate, and should not need a scuffle to sort it out. And a court that finds a lawyer breached its gag order has contempt powers built for exactly that. Recommending that he be taken off the roll for a year, removing him from every client he represents, invites the question of whether the punishment fits the offense.

THE GRIEVANCE AND Ethics Committee and the Supreme Court will decide Kowou’s fate, and they should be left to do so on the facts. But the larger question belongs to all of us. Why does so much of Liberia’s public life collapse into battles that leave no one better off?

WE SEE IT in our courts, where procedural skirmishes routinely outlast the substance of cases. We see it in our politics, where opponents are treated as enemies and every disagreement becomes a war of press releases and radio call-ins. We see it in institutions that spend more energy defending turf than serving citizens. Each battle feels urgent to those fighting it. Added together, they consume the time, money and goodwill a recovering nation cannot spare.

REEVES PUT IT plainly: “God rarely raises a community through spectators.” But a nation also cannot be rebuilt by combatants who mistake every quarrel for a cause. Somebody, as he said, has to forgive. Somebody has to tell the truth. Somebody has to lead with integrity. That includes judges, lawyers and prosecutors, who carry special responsibility for showing that disputes in Liberia can be settled by law rather than by noise.

THE PASTOR ALSO warned against measuring progress by the wrong numbers. “Raising 1 billion dollars in revenue is not the same as human flourishing,” he said. “Institutional survival is not the same as institutional excellence.” Courts that keep functioning are not the same as courts that inspire confidence. A trial that grinds on is not the same as justice being done.

LIBERIA HAS PASSED through its Friday. The question Reeves left hanging over Sunday’s congregation is whether we will keep reliving it in smaller battles, or choose the harder work of building something that lasts.

THE CHOICE, AS he said, belongs to whoever is willing to walk out of the tomb.

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.

A school in plain sight

THE CHILDREN OF Chief Compound Public School in Gbarnga are not asking for much. They want chairs.

THIS WEEK, FRONTPAGEAFRICA reported that more than 1,500 pupils at the school compete each morning for a handful of usable seats. Those who lose the race sit on bare concrete for hours, balancing exercise books on their knees. Others share broken benches or carry chairs from home. In the staff room, a teacher hunted for somewhere to put down her lesson notes before marking pupils’ books in the doorway, because that was where the light was.

THIS IS NOT a school lost in the bush, beyond a river that floods every rainy season. It sits in the capital of Bong County, a short walk from government offices. If children can be left on the floor here, in plain sight, we should be deeply worried about what is happening in schools that no reporter visits.

Why Monrovia must act

THE COUNTY EDUCATION Officer, David Boakai, told this newspaper he had not been aware of the conditions. We credit him for saying so plainly. But his answer is itself the indictment. A school of more than a thousand children in the county seat should not be invisible to the officer responsible for it. When it is, the failure is not one man’s. It belongs to a system that does not count, does not inspect and does not report.

THAT IS WHY this is a matter for the national government, not for Bong County alone. The Ministry of Education sets policy, controls the budget and decides what reaches the counties. Liberian law promises free and compulsory primary education. A promise of free schooling means little when a child must bring her own chair, or stay home because her parents cannot afford one. Pupils at Chief Compound told our reporter that some of their friends have stopped coming for exactly that reason.

A CHAIR IS not a luxury. It is the most basic tool of learning, after the teacher. A child who sits on the floor for six hours cannot write properly, cannot concentrate and learns, quietly, that the state did not expect her to arrive.

What the government must do

WE CALL ON the Ministry of Education and the national government to act on five fronts.

1. Furnish Chief Compound now. Deliver enough chairs and desks for every pupil and teacher before the end of this term. This is an emergency purchase, not a budget debate.

2. Count every seat in the country. Order a national audit of furniture in public schools: pupils enrolled, usable seats, and what must be repaired or replaced. Publish the results county by county.

3. Put furniture in the budget. Create a dedicated line for school furniture in the next national budget, tied to the audit’s figures, so that a chair does not depend on a donor’s goodwill or a parent’s pocket.

4. Stop charging children for chairs. Make clear that no public school may require pupils to bring their own seats as a condition of attending class.

5. Make officials see. Require county and district education officers to inspect and report on school conditions every term, and hold them answerable when a school like Chief Compound goes unreported.

6. ⁠

The measure of a government

GOVERNMENTS SPEAK OFTEN about education as the foundation of Liberia’s future. The children of Chief Compound are testing whether those words mean anything. They have done their part. They turned up, sat on the floor and still opened their exercise books.

“WE ARE CHILDREN, and all we are asking for is a chair,” one of them told our reporter. “We want to believe that somebody will hear us.”

THIS NEWSPAPER HAS heard them. The question now is whether the Ministry of Education and the national government will. We will return to Gbarnga to find out, and we will report what we see.

NO LIBERIAN CHILD should be forced to learn on the floor. Not in Gbarnga, and not anywhere else in this country.

Summary: Forty-seven days after her arrest, former Vice President Jewel Howard-Taylor remains under house arrest without a Grand Jury indictment. The government says it has strong evidence, yet the case appears to hinge on one witness, an alleged co-conspirator. It has also ignored a legal path to a special Grand Jury, and Liberia’s wider drug traffic remains unexplained. The state must either present its case or release her from restrictions.

FORTY-SEVEN DAYS AFTER former Vice President Jewel Howard-Taylor was stopped at Roberts International Airport and charged in what the government called one of the biggest narcotics cases in the nation’s history, Liberians are entitled to ask a simple question: where is the case?

THERE IS NO Grand Jury indictment. There is no trial date. What there is, instead, is a former vice president confined to her home under court-ordered restrictions, and a government that told the country it had “overwhelming evidence” but has yet to put that evidence before the body the Constitution says must review it first.

LET US BE clear about what this newspaper is not saying. We are not saying Madam Howard-Taylor is innocent. We are not saying she is guilty. The allegations against her are grave: drug trafficking, money laundering, conspiracy, and payments said to run into hundreds of thousands of dollars from people tied to an international cocaine network. Liberia’s drug crisis is real. Our young people are dying from it. The government has every right, indeed every duty, to pursue anyone it believes is feeding it.

BUT HAVING THE right to prosecute is not the same as having the right to wait indefinitely.

The Constitution is not optional

ARTICLE 21 OF our Constitution says no person shall be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime except on indictment by a Grand Jury. That provision exists for a reason. It is the people’s check on the state, a requirement that ordinary citizens, not just prosecutors, agree there is a case worth answering before a person’s liberty is taken.

THE GOVERNMENT’S EXPLANATION is that the Grand Jury is not sitting. But the Criminal Procedure Law anticipated exactly this situation. Section 15.5 allows a Circuit Court judge, on the prosecution’s application, to summon a special Grand Jury whenever the public interest requires it. If this case, which the government itself has described as a matter of national security, does not meet the public interest test, it is hard to imagine one that would.

SO WHY HASN’T the Ministry of Justice used it?

What is the government waiting for?

CRIMINAL COURT “C” denied Madam Howard-Taylor’s bail on September 24, ruling that the government’s writ alleged conduct continuing into August 2026. The court was careful to say its ruling did not settle the substance of the charges. That is the point. Every ruling so far has been about whether she should be held, not whether the state can prove what it says.

MEANWHILE, THE CASE appears to rest heavily on one man: Sheikh Bashiru Kante, the businessman who allegedly introduced her to the network, allegedly carried money to her foundation, and whose phone allegedly holds the recordings at the center of the prosecution. Kante is himself an alleged co-conspirator. He was arrested in the United States in 2022 on fraud and money laundering charges. And this week, sources close to the defense claimed he is demanding US$500,000, banked abroad, before he takes the stand. The Ministry of Justice has denied offering him money.

WE CANNOT SAY whether that claim is true. But the government’s silence on the larger question is telling. If the state has travel records, financial trails and independent evidence, as it said in August, why does the case appear to stand still whenever the conversation turns to one witness? A prosecution built on the word and phone of an alleged co-conspirator with his own legal history is fragile. The longer the government delays, the more it invites the suspicion that it knows this.

One woman cannot be the whole story

THERE IS ANOTHER question this case forces on us. In the past year, Liberia has seen cocaine seizures worth hundreds of millions of dollars: four tonnes in July alone, and hundreds of kilograms at the airport in June. Drugs on that scale do not move through a country on the influence of one retired politician. They move through ports, airports, customs posts, security checkpoints, warehouses and bank accounts.

WHO SIGNED OFF at the port? Who cleared the cargo? Who looked the other way at the airport? The foreign nationals named in the case have been charged in absentia, beyond the reach of our courts. If Madam Howard-Taylor ends up as the only prominent Liberian ever to face trial for this traffic, Liberians will be right to ask whether this was a war on drugs or a war on one person.

Fairness is not a favor

THE DEFENSE HAS its own questions to answer. It has argued that the 2023 drug law cannot apply to conduct before it was passed, and the court has so far sided with the state on that point. Those are legitimate legal fights, and they belong in a courtroom, not on radio talk shows or in political rallies.

BUT THE BURDEN right now is on the government. It chose to arrest a former vice president at the airport. It chose to announce its evidence to the public. It chose the timeline. It must now live by the rules it is asking the rest of us to respect.

DUE PROCESS IS not a favor granted to the powerful. It is the protection every Liberian relies on, including the market woman, the motorcyclist, and the student who will never have a team of lawyers or a newspaper willing to tell their story. If the state can hold a former vice president for seven weeks without an indictment, it can hold anyone.

THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE has two honorable options. Convene a special Grand Jury and present its evidence, or admit that the evidence is not yet ready and release her from restrictions while the investigation continues.

WHAT IT CANNOT do is leave her and the nation waiting.

AT THE WEEKEND, President Joseph Nyuma Boakai stood before Liberians in the United States, turned a question about a second term back to the crowd, and smiled: “I am still entitled to one term.” On the same Sunday in Monrovia, five opposition parties signed a pact to hold his government accountable and work together toward 2029. In the ruling camp, the Vice President and others are weighing their own futures. Across the country, party structures are waking up, alliances are shifting, and loyalties are being tested.

NONE OF THIS is unusual. Ambition is part of democracy. Wanting to lead your country is no sin. What matters is how that ambition is pursued, and what it is pursued for.

SO, THIS NEWSPAPER has one appeal to every man and woman who plans to ask Liberians for their vote in 2029: put Liberia first.

WE SAY THIS because we have seen what happens when politicians put themselves first.

LIBERIA DID NOT fall into chaos by accident. The slide began long before the first gunshot. It began with politics built on grievance instead of vision, on “my people” against “your people,” on the belief that power was a prize to be seized and kept, not a trust to be earned and returned. Spite became strategy. Hatred became a mobilizing tool. Greed turned public office into private property. The 1980 coup, the war that followed in 1989, and the second war that dragged into 2003 were paid for by ordinary Liberians: an estimated quarter of a million dead, a generation of children handed guns instead of books, and families scattered across refugee camps and foreign cities, many of them in the very diaspora the President addressed on Sunday.

PEACE DID NOT come from the men who made war. Much of it came from ordinary people who refused to accept it. The market women and church and mosque women who sat in the sun at the fish market, dressed in white, demanding peace. The mothers who said enough. They reminded us that the country belongs to its people, not to those who would burn it to rule the ashes.

SINCE THEN, LIBERIA has built something precious. In 2017, power passed from one elected president to another for the first time in generations. In 2023, a sitting president lost by one of the narrowest margins in our history and conceded peacefully. Those were not small things. They were proof that Liberians can disagree fiercely and still remain one nation.

BUT PEACE IS not a permanent gift. It has to be protected, election after election. And the warning signs are always the same: the rumor spread on WhatsApp to inflame one county against another, the rally speech that attacks a rival’s tribe or religion instead of his record, the young people paid a few dollars to fight at a campaign ground, the promise of jobs and contracts that sounds more like loot-sharing than governance. In 2023, campaign clashes turned deadly in places. We cannot afford to treat that as normal.

WHAT LIBERIANS NEED in 2029 is a contest of ideas.

TELL US HOW you will bring down the price of rice and fuel. Tell us how you will put electricity in homes beyond Monrovia, pave the roads that cut off whole counties in the rainy season, pay teachers and nurses on time, and keep young people off the streets and away from drugs. Tell us how you will fight corruption, including when the accused is your own ally. Tell us how you will create jobs for a young population that is tired of waiting. Show us your plan, your numbers, and your record, and let the voters judge.

TO THOSE IN power: incumbency is not a license. State resources, security forces and public media belong to all Liberians, not to one party’s campaign. A government confident in its record should welcome scrutiny, not fear it.

TO THOSE IN opposition: accountability is not the same as agitation. Criticize hard, expose failures, offer alternatives. But do not tear down the house simply because you are not the one living in it.

TO EVERY CANDIDATE and party leader: control your supporters. Words spoken on a microphone travel far, and in Liberia they have a history of ending in blood. Condemn violence and hate speech loudly, including when it comes from your own side.

AND TO THE voters: demand more. Ask candidates what they will do, not only whom they hate. Refuse to be bought. Refuse to be divided. Your vote is the most powerful thing you own. Do not sell it for a bag of rice or a T-shirt.

LIBERIA HAS ALREADY paid too high a price for politics driven by spite, hatred and greed. We have walked that road. We know where it leads.

IN 2029, WHOEVER wins, let Liberia win first.

THE SIGNATURES on Sunday’s joint communiqué were barely dry before the question every Liberian was already asking landed on the table: haven’t we seen this before?

WE HAVE. In 2005, a crowded opposition split the vote and handed the runoff to Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. In 2011, the main challenger walked away from the runoff altogether. The Collaborating Political Parties won a Senate seat in 2020, then collapsed in a quarrel over a framework document and a flag-bearer long before the 2023 elections. By the time voters went to the polls, the men and women who had promised to stand together were campaigning against one another. The Unity Party, which had itself been part of that collapse, walked into the Executive Mansion by barely 20,000 votes.

SO, WHEN George Weah, Alexander Cummings, Dee-Maxwell Saah Kemayah, Simeon Freeman and Jonathan Mason put their names to eight pages accusing the Boakai-Koung government of selective justice, lost territory and a creeping police state, the grievances were not the news. Liberians know what the opposition is against. The news is whether it has finally learned how to stay together.

TO BE FAIR, the document suggests some lessons have been absorbed. The parties have not merged. They have not crowned a leader. They have not touched the 2029 ticket. They have created a joint technical committee, two members from each party, and given it the dull but necessary job of turning complaints into policy. They say, in their own words, that they will not try to manufacture unity by declaration. That sentence reads like a confession about the CPP, and it is the most honest line in the communiqué.

THE HOSTING arrangement also matters. The first roundtable was at Weah’s Jamaica Resort. The second was at Freeman’s Sinkor Palace. That may sound like protocol, but it answers a charge Musa Bility made loudly before the first meeting: that this was a CDC project with its leadership decided in advance.

AND YET Bility is gone. His Citizens Movement for Change walked out three days before the signing, saying the draft did not commit to real national reform. The opposition can call that a small loss. It should instead treat it as a warning. The CPP did not die in one dramatic night; it died one grievance at a time, each one dismissed as minor until there was nothing left.

HAVE THEY LEARNED from their mistakes? Partly. They have learned what not to say. They have not yet shown they know what to do. If this effort is to be different, we believe it must do at least five things.

FIRST, publish the rule before the name. The CPP did not collapse because it had too many candidates; it collapsed because it never settled, in public and in advance, how one of them would be chosen. A primary, a polling formula, a negotiated power-sharing deal: any of these is better than silence. The name can come in 2028. The rule should come in 2026.

SECOND, own the past. A coalition anchored by the CDC cannot lecture the government about selective justice while pretending 2018 to 2024 did not happen. Liberians remember the missing billions controversy and the officials sanctioned abroad. An opposition that wants to be trusted on corruption should say plainly which of its own it would hold to account.

THIRD, bring the doubters back in. The CMC’s objection was not about seating arrangements. It was about reform: the structure of government, the institutions, the laws. That argument deserves an answer, not a shrug. So do the absences of the Liberty Party and a divided NPP. A tent that is wide only on paper will not hold.

FOURTH, produce something. The technical committee should publish positions, with deadlines, on the issues the communiqué raises: resettlement for families evicted from their homes, pay for teachers and health workers, the border in Foya, an independent drug inquiry. Liberians have heard enough roundtable statements. They have rarely been handed an opposition plan they could hold in their hands and judge.

FIFTH, leave Monrovia. Elections in Liberia are not decided at resort roundtables or palace signings. They are won in Lofa, Nimba, Grand Gedeh and Bong. The communiqué promises outreach in all fifteen counties. That promise should be the first one kept.

NONE OF THIS lets the government off the hook. The questions the opposition has raised about the Foya project, the SIB transfer and the handling of the drug busts are serious, and the Boakai administration would be wise to answer them with documents rather than with dismissals. An opposition with a good argument is a problem. An opposition with a good argument and a working structure is a threat.

THE PEOPLE who signed Sunday’s communiqué have been here before, some of them more than once. They know the script. The only question left is whether they are prepared to write a different ending. Liberians will judge them not by what they signed, but by who is still standing beside whom when the ballots are printed.