In a nation founded on principles of liberty by freed American slaves, a fundamental question has emerged: When Liberians wish to assemble in protest, must they first seek government permission?
The controversy, which has intensified under President Joseph N. Boakai's administration, pits constitutional guarantees of assembly against statutory regulations that government officials say are necessary for public safety.
"All persons, always, in an orderly and peaceable manner, shall have the right to assemble," reads Article 17 of Liberia's 1986 Constitution, the supreme legal document in this West African democracy of approximately 5 million people.
Yet successive administrations have maintained that citizens must obtain permits from the Ministry of Justice before staging public demonstrations — a requirement that critics say fundamentally contradicts the constitutional promise.
"While citizens fundamentally possess the right to assemble peacefully and express their views, the government—through the Ministry of Justice—bears responsibility for ensuring public safety and evaluating potential impacts," Cllr. Lafayette B. Gould, a constitutional lawyer in Liberia.
Gould addressed the constitutional right to assembly as a nuanced and complex issue that requires careful balancing of individual rights and societal safeguards, drawing a critical distinction between assembly and protest.
Assembly, Gould said, is a constructive request for change, where citizens can gather peacefully to propose new laws or call for constitutional referendums
"Protests, by contrast, are characterized by opposition to government actions and often invite greater scrutiny from authorities due to their potentially more confrontational nature. He said, "When citizens seek to assemble—whether to advocate for policy changes, request government action, or address specific societal concerns—the Ministry of Justice must comprehensively evaluate the potential consequences. The government has established specific protocols for such gatherings, which include mandatory notification before the assembly or protest, assessment of security risks, evaluation of potential economic disruptions, and consideration of potential infringements on the rights of uninvolved parties".
Gould said the law mandates that such gatherings must remain peaceful and orderly, with state security officials ultimately determining the parameters of what constitutes "peace" and "order." Notification is not merely a bureaucratic formality but the first step in a rigorous review process designed to balance individual expression with collective safety.
The goal, according to Gould, is to protect both the citizens' right to voice their concerns and the broader interests of society. The aim is to ensure that assemblies contribute to constructive dialogue rather than create unnecessary conflict or social disruption.
A History of Restriction
The permit requirement stems from the Public Marches and Demonstrations Act of 1975, legislation that predates the current constitution by more than a decade. Government officials have continued enforcing these regulations through the Liberia National Police Act of 2015, which references the earlier statute.
During President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's administration, which ended in 2018, the Justice Ministry formally banned "unauthorized public assembly in all form and manner"—a" move that sparked initial controversy but was largely accepted during a period of post-civil war recovery.
Under President George Weah, who served from 2018 to 2023, the issue gained renewed attention when a protest movement known as the "Council of Patriots" requested permission to demonstrate. Then-Attorney General Frank Musa Dean denied their application, insisting the group needed to provide documentation of their formal incorporation.
President Boakai, who took office in January, has continued the practice, with his Justice Ministry recently reaffirming the permit requirement — leading to significant public backlash.
Constitutional Supremacy vs. Public Order
Legal scholars remain divided. Those who oppose the permit system argue that the constitutional language is unambiguous: Liberians may assemble "always" with the sole condition that gatherings remain "orderly and peaceable."
"The Ministry of Justice's attempt to reframe a constitutional right as a privilege that can be granted or denied by the state is legally baseless and constitutionally offensive. It is a distortion of the law and a deliberate tactic to intimidate Liberians into silence," Mulbah Morlu, chairman of the Solidarity and Trust for a New Day (STAND).
Morlu characterized "Protest/March without Permit is illegal" as a stark violation of the Constitution of Liberia.
He furthered that "Nowhere in this article is a permit required to exercise this right." The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and supersedes administrative preferences or ministerial misinterpretations.
Government officials counter that the permit system itself ensures that protests remain orderly and peaceful, as the constitution requires. The Liberia National Police, established in 1956, maintains that advance coordination is essential for public safety.
"We hereby reiterate that the failure of any person to obey, comply with, and abide by the provisions of ancillary or enabling statutes that seek to give meaning to rights guaranteed by the Constitution amounts to a waiver or forfeiture of said right, and that a challenge to such statute will not be entertained simply because a person feels or is affected by the application of such statute," the Ministry of Justice said in a response to The Stage Media.
The permit requirement serves as a mechanism for maintaining public order and ensuring safety, preventing violence, and facilitating coordination with law enforcement. It provides a framework that leads to more organized and peaceful gatherings while balancing individual rights with broader public interests.
While the right to assemble is foundational in our democracy, it must be exercised within a framework that protects all citizens' rights and interests.
By obtaining the required permits, organizers ensure legal compliance and prevent potential conflicts with law enforcement that might lead to arrests or dispersal of gatherings—outcomes that would undermine the very purpose of peaceful assembly.
It is important to emphasize that the permit process will never be used to unduly restrict citizens' rights. The Constitution provides judicial review mechanisms where citizens can challenge permit denials they consider excessively restrictive. If a permit is denied, citizens may appeal to the courts for redress, ensuring appropriate checks and balances against arbitrary decision-making.
A Question of Balance
As Liberia continues to strengthen its democratic institutions following years of civil conflict that ended in 2003, the protest permit controversy represents a critical test of how the nation balances competing interests.
For ordinary Liberians, the answers to these questions will determine not just the legal framework for public assembly but the very nature of democratic participation in a country still working to establish stable democratic institutions nearly two centuries after its founding.
According to the Ministry of Justice, the requirement for obtaining permits prior to public gatherings (marches/assemblies) serves to facilitate, not hinder, the exercise of the constitutional right to freedom of assembly. This requirement exists because the constitutional guarantee of freedom of assembly is not self-executing and requires enabling legislation to give practical meaning to this guaranteed right.
This legal principle has been definitively upheld by the Supreme Court of Liberia. In the case of Manuella P. Vargas vs. Her Honour C. Aimesa Reeves & Ezzat Eid (October Term, A.D. 1998), Justice M. Wilkins Wright, speaking for the Court, stated:
"We recognize and give credence to the Constitution of Liberia and to the principle that any law found to be inconsistent with the Constitution is void and that the Supreme Court has the power to declare said law unconstitutional. The problem is that the law must first be found to be inconsistent, and then it can or will be declared unconstitutional."
"Self-executing constitutional provision refers to provisions that are immediately effective without the necessity of ancillary legislation. A constitutional provision is self-executing if it supplies sufficient rules by which rights given may be enjoyed or duties imposed enforced; a constitutional provision is not self-executing when it merely indicates principles without laying down rules giving them the force of law." MoJ stated .
The Court holds that the statute is not unconstitutional but that it is in aid of the Constitution. This statute gives form, shape, and effect to the broad constitutional provision, which is merely a general guideline. The statute makes it capable of being exercised and enjoyed; without such a statute, the constitutional provision will remain abstract and a mere declaration of principle.
The Constitution cannot provide for every single scenario or possibility or transaction, and that is why statutory enactments are provided for, so as to give life or meaning to constitutional principles, and such enabling legislation must be strictly observed.
The Constitution cannot provide for every single scenario or possibility or transaction, and that is why statutory enactments are provided for, so as to give life or meaning to constitutional principles, and such enabling legislation must be strictly observed.
This permit system represents a necessary balance between rights and public order.
"Some of the constitutional rights that are not self-executing for which enabling legislation has been passed include the right to appeal from an adverse judgment, the right of free movement to include travel in and out of Liberia, the right to bail, the right to vote, the right to freedom of assembly and association, or for that matter, to own, use and enjoy property," MOJ said.
