Will Liberia Honor Its Constitution or Silence Rural Citizens’ Right to Choose Traditional Leaders?

A question directly to His Excellency President Joseph Nyuma Boakai, Honorable Speaker Richard Nagbe Koon, President Pro Tempore Nyonblee Karnga-Lawrence, and Honorable Francis S. Nyumalin: Article 56(b) of Liberia’s Constitution provides for the election of Paramount, Clan, and Town Chiefs by registered voters in their respective localities.

---

By: Austin S Fallah – A True Son of the Planet Earth Soil: [email protected]

---

What legislative action will you support to ensure that rural citizens can exercise this constitutional right?”

President Joseph Nyuma Boakai: “Monrovia is not Liberia.” President Boakai said this while emphasizing inclusive development and equal opportunities for Liberians across the country. It relates to the broader debate over rural representation, but specifically to the right to elect chiefs—source: Executive Mansion statement⁠, April 20, 2026.

On democratic accountability:
On May 26, 2025, The Liberian Investigator reported that Speaker Koon publicly apologized for tensions caused by the House leadership crisis, saying, “Let me apologize for the tension we created that caused embarrassment for the government and you, the Liberian people.”

President Pro Tempore Nyonblee Karnga-Lawrence:In a May 13, 2025, congratulatory message to Speaker Koon, President Pro Tempore Karnga-Lawrence described the legislative impasse as: “A stress test for our democratic institutions”
The Senate’s published account attributes this characterization to her in the context of legislative proceedings.
Source: Senate Report⁠.

Hon.Minister of Local Government (formerly Internal Affairs) Francis Sakila Nyumalin:
National Council of Chiefs meeting, reported by the PPCC: The official report states that Nyumalin called for local chieftaincy elections and that chiefs urged President Boakai to support elections across the country. The report also quotes the minister:
“I have already met with the Minister of Finance and Development Planning, and I made it clear that we must dignify our chiefs by ensuring they receive their due entitlements.”
This is a reported quotation concerning the treatment and compensation of chiefs, not a direct quotation about the constitutional right to elect them. Source: Official report on the National Council of Chiefs meeting⁠ at the PPCC.

African proverb: “A man who forgets where he started forgets who he’s building for.”

African proverb: “Integrity doesn’t need to hide from opportunity. It only needs to stay itself inside it.”

Liberia’s constitutional democracy cannot be measured only by presidential and legislative elections in Monrovia and other urban centers.

It must also be measured by whether citizens in the hinterland, particularly those living in rural towns, clans, and chiefdoms, are permitted to exercise the rights expressly guaranteed to them by the Constitution.

One of the clearest examples is the constitutional right of registered voters to elect Paramount Chiefs, Clan Chiefs, and Town Chiefs. Article 56(b) of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia states that registered voters in their respective localities shall elect these traditional leaders for six-year terms.

Chiefs may be re-elected, and they may be removed only by the President for proven misconduct.

The Constitution also directs the Legislature to establish laws concerning the qualifications, responsibilities, and operational procedures of these offices.

This constitutional language is neither vague nor optional.

It establishes a democratic principle: traditional leadership must derive its legitimacy not merely from appointment, inheritance, political preference, or administrative convenience, but from the consent of the people.

Yet the continuing failure to conduct regular, credible elections for traditional leaders raises a serious question: Will the Liberian government ever fully implement Article 56(b), or is it effectively silencing rural citizens’ constitutional right to choose their own local leaders?

The answer should be clear. Liberia must follow through on its constitutional commitment to traditional leadership elections.

Failure to do so undermines democratic participation, weakens accountability, enables political manipulation of customary institutions, and sends the harmful message that rural Liberians’ constitutional rights matter less than those of urban residents.

The Local Government Act of 2018 and Liberia’s election laws provide an important legal framework for implementation, but laws alone are not enough.

The government must demonstrate political will, allocate resources, clarify procedures, and conduct elections that are inclusive, transparent, and consistent with both constitutional democracy and legitimate cultural traditions.

Article 56(b) matters because it recognizes the importance of local governance.

In many parts of Liberia, traditional leaders remain deeply connected to community life.

Paramount Chiefs, Clan Chiefs, and Town Chiefs may play significant roles in resolving disputes, mobilizing communities for development projects, preserving customs, communicating government policies, and representing local concerns before county and national authorities.

In communities where formal state institutions may be distant or poorly resourced, traditional leaders often serve as the most visible face of authority.

Because these leaders exercise influence over people’s daily lives, their selection cannot be treated as a private matter for political elites, county officials, or a small group of influential families.

The Constitution places selection power in the hands of registered voters in the relevant localities.

This is an intentional democratic safeguard.

This means rural citizens are not merely subjects of traditional authority; they help choose their local governors and representatives.

The Constitution’s 60-year term is also significant.

A fixed term prevents traditional leaders from holding office indefinitely without public review.

It gives communities a regular opportunity to evaluate whether their chiefs have served honestly, promoted peace, respected citizens, and contributed to development.

The possibility of re-election recognizes that communities may wish to retain effective leaders.

At the same time, elections let citizens replace leaders who have failed them.

This arrangement balances stability with accountability.

When elections are delayed for long periods or replaced by appointments, acting positions, or informal arrangements, that balance is destroyed.

A chief who remains in office beyond a constitutionally expected electoral cycle may continue to exercise authority without renewed public consent.

Even where the individual is respected, the process remains problematic because constitutional rights belong to the people, not to officeholders.

No leader, however popular or experienced, should be allowed to remain in a public role simply because the government has failed to organize an election.

Failing to hold traditional leadership elections also creates opportunities for political interference.

If chiefs depend on appointments, endorsements, or informal approval from powerful officials, they may become more accountable to national politicians than to the communities they are supposed to serve.

This is especially troubling in a country where political loyalty can influence access to public services, development projects, employment opportunities, and administrative recognition.

Traditional leaders should not be turned into extensions of partisan politics.

Their legitimacy should come primarily from their communities.

When properly conducted, elections help protect this independence.

A chief elected by registered voters has a stronger mandate to speak for local people, even when they disagree with county officials, legislators, ministers, or the President.

By contrast, a chief seen as politically installed may be reluctant to criticize government failures or strongly advocate for community needs.

This issue is therefore not merely about holding another round of elections.

It is about protecting local self-government.

Democracy weakens when decision-making concentrates in the capital or in the hands of a few national leaders.

Liberia’s constitutional system recognizes that citizens in towns, clans, and chiefdoms help shape the leadership structures that affect them most directly.

Denying or indefinitely postponing that role turns rural citizens into spectators in a system that claims to be democratic.

The Local Government Act of 2018 should be viewed as an opportunity to make Article 56(b) more meaningful.

The Act was designed to advance decentralization and strengthen local governance structures.

Decentralization, however, cannot succeed if it is only administrative.

Transferring responsibilities to local authorities without ensuring their democratic legitimacy risks reproducing the same problems at a lower level.

Local government must be accountable to local people.

The Legislature has an especially important responsibility.

Article 56(b) directs it to enact laws concerning the qualifications and functioning of Paramount, Clan, and Town Chiefs.

This means that lawmakers cannot simply acknowledge the constitutional provision while leaving the details unclear or unenforced.

They must ensure the legal framework is practical, publicly understood, and implementable nationwide.

For example, Liberia needs clear rules on voter eligibility, candidate qualifications, nomination procedures, campaign conduct, dispute resolution, the role of traditional councils, the participation of women and young people, and the relationship between customary norms and constitutional rights.

The law must also set out procedures for vacancies, death, incapacity, resignation, alleged misconduct, and challenges to election results.

If these issues remain uncertain, elections can become a source of confusion and conflict rather than legitimacy.

However, administrative difficulties cannot permanently excuse inaction.

Liberia has organized national elections under difficult conditions, including elections after civil conflict, during public-health challenges, and amid logistical limitations.

Conducting local traditional leadership elections may require careful planning, but the state can do so.

The National Elections Commission, working with the Ministry of Internal Affairs, local government institutions, civil society organizations, and community leaders, can develop a realistic electoral calendar and implementation strategy.

A phased approach may be appropriate.

The government could begin by conducting a nationwide assessment of vacant, disputed, expired, or occupied traditional leadership positions.

It could then establish a transparent county-by-county election schedule, ensuring citizens know when and how they will vote.

Public education would be essential, particularly in communities where literacy levels may be limited or where residents have not participated in such elections for many years.

Radio programs, town-hall meetings, local-language information campaigns, and collaboration with community-based organizations could help voters understand their rights.

Voter registration must also be handled fairly.

Because Article 56(b) refers to registered voters in their respective localities, the government must ensure that voter rolls accurately reflect community residency.

The process should not exclude rural citizens because of distance, lack of identification documents, disability, poverty, or limited access to registration centers.

If voter registration is inaccessible, the right to elect traditional leaders becomes meaningless in practice.

Women’s participation deserves particular attention. Liberia has a history of strong women leaders, peace activists, market women, professionals, farmers, and community organizers.

Yet men have often dominated traditional governance structures.

The constitutional requirement for elections provides an opportunity to expand women’s political participation at the local level.

Women should be free to vote, campaign, and run for office where legally eligible.

Any customary practice that completely excludes women from political leadership must be examined in light of constitutional equality and democratic principles.

Respect for culture should not be confused with acceptance of exclusion.

Liberia can preserve valuable traditions of community consultation, respect for elders, customary dispute resolution, and local identity while still honoring constitutional rights.

Culture is not static; it evolves as societies confront new realities.

The election of traditional leaders does not destroy tradition.

Rather, it can strengthen tradition by ensuring that leaders retain the confidence of the communities whose customs they claim to represent.

Critics may argue that traditional leadership should be determined by lineage, customary succession, or the decisions of elders rather than popular elections.

They may contend that elections introduce divisive partisan politics into local institutions.

These concerns should not be dismissed. In some communities, family lineage and customary authority matter deeply, and electoral competition can create tension.

But the Constitution has already made a fundamental choice: registered voters will fill the offices of Paramount, Clan, and Town Chief through elections.

The government cannot ignore that choice simply because implementation is challenging.

Moreover, elections need not be conducted in ways that disrespect local customs.

Communities can retain appropriate cultural processes, such as consultations with elders and traditional councils, while still allowing registered voters to make the final decision.

Candidate eligibility rules may account for genuine customary requirements, as long as they do not violate constitutional protections.

The key principle is that custom must operate within the Constitution, not above it.

Another argument sometimes raised is that traditional chief elections are too expensive for a country with many competing needs.

Liberia certainly faces urgent demands in health care, education, roads, sanitation, employment, and security.

Yet this argument misunderstands the relationship between democracy and development.

Accountable local leadership can improve development outcomes.

Chiefs who are chosen by their communities are more likely to listen to local priorities, mobilize residents, promote transparency, and advocate for neglected areas.

Elections are not a distraction from development; they are part of the foundation for responsive development.

The cost of ignoring the Constitution may be even greater.

Continued delays can produce frustration, legal disputes, community divisions, and distrust of government.

Citizens who believe they are denied their rights may lose confidence in public institutions.

In a country still strengthening its democratic culture after years of conflict and instability, government officials should not underestimate the importance of honoring constitutional promises.

Democracy becomes credible when citizens see that the law applies equally in the capital and in the most remote village.

The President also has a constitutional responsibility in this matter.

Article 56(b) gives the President authority to remove chiefs only for proven misconduct.

This limitation is crucial because it protects chiefs from arbitrary dismissal.

It also reinforces the idea that chiefs are not simply employees of the executive branch.

They hold offices rooted in local electoral legitimacy.

The President’s role should therefore be exercised carefully, based on evidence, due process, and respect for the rights of both the chief and the community.

At the same time, the executive branch cannot use its limited removal authority as a substitute for elections.

Removal for misconduct is not the same as democratic renewal.

A government that removes one chief while failing to organize elections for many others has not fulfilled its constitutional obligation.

The constitutional system requires both accountability for misconduct and regular electoral choice.

Ultimately, Liberia faces a straightforward constitutional test.

The question is not whether traditional leadership is important; it clearly is.

The question is whether the people who live under traditional leadership will be allowed to choose those leaders as the Constitution requires.

If the government continues to postpone elections without a credible plan, it risks silencing the political voice of citizens in the hinterland.

It also risks treating rural democracy as less urgent than national democracy.

Liberia should not accept that outcome. The government, Legislature, National Elections Commission, Ministry of Local Government (formerly Internal Affairs), civil society, and traditional communities should work together to implement Article 56(b) fully.

They should establish clear procedures, fund elections, educate voters, protect women’s participation, resolve disputes fairly, and publish an enforceable timetable for the election of Paramount, Clan, and Town Chiefs.

The Constitution is a promise between the state and its people.

For rural Liberians, the right to elect traditional leaders is part of that promise.

Honoring it would strengthen local accountability, protect communities from political manipulation, deepen decentralization, and affirm that every Liberian citizen, whether in Monrovia, Gbarnga, Zwedru, Robertsport, Haper, Kakata, Sanniquelle, Voinjama, Buchanan, or a remote village, deserves an equal voice in the democratic life of the nation.