Liberia: NPA Security Director Charles Roberts Under Fire for Calling MDR Lawmaker ‘Monkey’

MONROVIA — Charles Roberts, Security Director at the National Port Authority and a vocal supporter of the ruling Unity Party, Wednesday described Nimba County lawmaker Kortor Sehwongbay Kwagrue as a “monkey” in a Facebook post.

By Selma Lomax, [email protected] 

The statement, which has since been deleted from Roberts’ official Facebook page following public criticism, came after Representative Kwagrue challenged officials of the Unity Party-led government over what he described as growing arrogance, inaccessibility and “meanness” toward ordinary Liberians.

The confrontation has drawn attention not only because of the language used by a government official, but also because Kwagrue is a member of the Movement for Democracy and Reconstruction (MDR), an affiliate of the Unity Party.

At a time when the Joseph Boakai administration is seeking to consolidate its political base and deliver on its development agenda, the public exchange has raised questions about how members of the governing alliance respond to criticism from within their own political ranks.

Rep. Kwagrue’s remarks were essentially a warning to the Unity Party leadership that political power can be lost when government officials become disconnected from the citizens who helped put them into office.

The Nimba County lawmaker urged the ruling party to examine what he described as mistakes similar to those that contributed to the defeat of the former Coalition for Democratic Change (CDC) administration. He argued that the CDC’s experience should serve as a political lesson for the Unity Party, particularly at a time when some government officials are allegedly becoming increasingly distant from grassroots supporters.

Rep. Kwagrue’s message was not that President Boakai had failed in every respect. In fact, the lawmaker expressly described Boakai as a “developmental president” and acknowledged that his administration was making progress. His concern was that the President’s achievements could be overshadowed by the conduct of people around him.

According to Rep. Kwagrue, a president’s political legacy cannot be protected simply by constructing roads, implementing development projects or signing government contracts. He maintained that political leaders must also maintain direct relationships with the people and ensure that their officials remain accessible.

“The reason people in Liberia will die for Joseph Boakai with sincerity is because he made a personal impact on them,” Rep. Kwagrue said, arguing that many government officials have become so removed from ordinary citizens that the people they are supposed to serve do not even know where to find them.

The lawmaker questioned how citizens could tell ministers the truth about conditions in their communities if those officials were inaccessible. He, therefore, called on the Unity Party to reconnect with grassroots politicians and supporters who worked to bring the party to power during the 2023 elections.

Rep. Kwagrue warned that political organizations cannot expect loyalty from citizens who feel abandoned after elections. “You need to go back to the same grassroots politicians you were begging in 2023 to come together,” he said. “Call them now, before it is too late, and accelerate the work for the people.”

The lawmaker’s argument extended beyond party organization to the economic conditions confronting ordinary Liberians. He maintained that hunger, unemployment and economic hardship can become political issues when citizens believe that government officials are benefiting from public resources while the population continues to struggle.

“A hungry man is an angry man,” Kwagrue said, warning that government officials who isolate themselves within inner circles could eventually face the consequences at the ballot box. The Nimba lawmaker also challenged the notion that development alone guarantees political support.

He argued that voters could recognize government achievements and still remove the politicians responsible for them if they did not feel a personal connection with those leaders. “You can do all the development, but if you don’t make personal impact on the voters, they will see the development and still vote you out,” he said.

It was this broader criticism of government officials that preceded Roberts’ intervention. Instead of responding directly to Rep. Kwagrue’s arguments about government performance, Roberts focused his response on the lawmaker himself.

In the Facebook post that was later deleted, Roberts referred to Rep. Kwagrue as “this monkey” and questioned why the lawmaker and others associated with the Unity Party would criticize members of the governing establishment. “This Monkey and all who Unity Party helped to bring to town had the audacity to come put mouth on UP people,” Roberts wrote.

Roberts also challenged Rep. Kwagrue to demonstrate whether he had distributed his legislative salary to his constituents in Nimba County, apparently in response to the lawmaker’s concerns about government officials helping ordinary citizens.

He questioned whether Kwagrue believed government officials should work and then distribute their salaries to citizens. Roberts further indicated that he did not intend to engage extensively with the lawmaker, ending his post with the statement, “SECURITY Man can’t talk plenty.”

But the controversy that followed demonstrated that Roberts’ decision to enter the debate had generated a dispute much larger than the original disagreement. The “monkey” reference quickly became the dominant issue, with critics arguing that the language was unacceptable, particularly coming from someone occupying a government position.

Rather than weakening Rep. Kwagrue’s criticism, the response appeared to shift public attention toward Roberts’ conduct. The question became less about whether Kwagrue was right or wrong in his assessment of government officials and more about whether a government official should respond to political criticism by insulting an elected representative.

The reaction was not limited to opposition figures. Several people identifying themselves with or expressing support for the Unity Party publicly condemned Roberts, creating an unusual situation in which supporters of the governing political establishment were themselves criticizing one of its vocal defenders.

Peter Dahn rejected Roberts’ suggestion that the Unity Party had simply handed Kwagrue his political position. Dahn argued that Kwagrue’s election was ultimately determined by voters in District #5, Nimba County, who placed their trust in him.

“Let’s make one thing clear: Unity Party did not single-handedly put the lawmaker in office,” Dahn said. “It was the overwhelming support, trust, and confidence of the people of District 5, Nimba County, combined with Hon. Kortor’s commitment to his people, that brought him to power.”

James Kollie also defended the substance of Rep. Kwagrue’s intervention, portraying the lawmaker’s criticism as a warning about the long-term political consequences of ignoring unemployed and struggling supporters.

“He’s speaking for you and those that do not have jobs,” Kollie said. “He’s more concerned about the next election not this short-term glory, Brother!” Kollie urged political actors to reach out to party supporters who were still searching for employment and opportunities. He argued that party members should be answering one another’s calls and creating opportunities for supporters rather than becoming disconnected after gaining political power.

“He’s speaking for tomorrow,” Kollie added. Abdullah Lumeh, who also identified himself as a Unity Party partisan, was even more direct in his criticism of Roberts.

“As a Unity Party Partisan, I strongly condemn this statement coming from Charles, referring to a National leader as a Monkey, this is very wrong!” Lumeh wrote.

Jimmy Bugbay similarly argued that Roberts could have disagreed with Kwagrue without attacking him personally. Bugbay maintained that criticism of government officials does not automatically justify an aggressive or insulting response.

“No. Expressing that some officials are mean or treating people poorly doesn’t require Charles Roberts to respond by being rude or arrogant,” Bugbay wrote. “He could acknowledge the criticism, disagree respectfully, or explain the officials’ position without insulting anyone. Likewise, criticizing someone’s behavior doesn’t automatically justify responding with hostility.”

The public reactions have placed Roberts’ deleted post at the center of a wider discussion about political conduct and social-media behavior among government officials. The controversy has also revived concerns about the increasingly confrontational nature of Liberia’s political discourse, where disagreements over public policy and government performance can quickly become personal disputes.