Liberia, is entering a major test of governance and constitutional power after the Ministry of Justice advised President Joseph Nyuma Boakai to veto a re-enacted ports bill. The ministry warned that the legislation still contains serious structural flaws and that lawmakers resubmitted it with claims of "fixes" that do not match the text now before the Executive Mansion.
In a legal opinion dated January 12, 2026, Acting Justice Minister and Deputy Minister for Administration and Public Safety Cllr. Cora Hare-Konowa told the President that the re-submitted Liberia Sea and Inland Ports Regulatory Act (2025) still fails to correct the main defect Boakai raised in 2025. She said the bill creates a new regulator that overlaps heavily with the Liberia Maritime Authority (LiMA) and also gives the new body operational powers that could trigger conflicts of interest and institutional confusion.
Hare-Konowa said the bill contains "substantial structural deficiencies that warrant a presidential veto."
The Justice Ministry also accused the Senate, through its official response to the President's earlier veto, of making "material assertions" about amendments that do not appear in the statutory text now submitted to the President. In simple terms, the Senate said it removed controversial provisions. The ministry said it did not.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
A renewed veto fight
The dispute revolves around legislation the Senate has pushed since last year to dismantle the current model anchored by the National Port Authority (NPA) and establish a new regulatory structure. Lawmakers also tied the reform push to a separate decentralization plan that aims to create autonomous ports in Monrovia, Buchanan, Greenville and Harper.
President Boakai vetoed companion bills in July 2025 after receiving advice from Justice Minister and Attorney General Oswald Tweh, who warned that the proposed structure blurred regulatory boundaries and risked weakening Liberia's maritime governance framework.
The Senate repassed the legislation in early January 2026, a move critics have framed as a constitutional showdown under Article 35, which gives the President the authority to approve or reject legislation.
What the Justice Ministry says still breaks the law
Hare-Konowa told the President that Liberia does not merely need a new port regulator. She said the country needs a regulator whose legal authority fits clearly within the existing framework.
She anchored that argument in the 2010 law that created the Liberia Maritime Authority. The opinion describes LiMA as a comprehensive agency that can "administer, secure, promote, regulate, enforce, design and execute" maritime policy. The ministry said LiMA's mandate reaches far beyond ship registration, covering merchant shipping standards, domestic and foreign waterborne activity, maritime surveillance, and enforcement of marine laws.
The ministry also said LiMA helps Liberia meet treaty obligations, including requirements tied to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and International Maritime Organization (IMO) instruments.
Hare-Konowa warned that the new ports regulator would duplicate or intrude into that space. She said the bill could leave vessels calling at Liberian ports facing two regulators with different standards, while the law stays silent on which rules take priority when they conflict.
Senate claimed deletions. The ministry found none.
The most politically explosive section of the opinion highlights what the Senate claimed it removed versus what the ministry said remains in the bill.
Hare-Konowa wrote that the Senate insisted it deleted "ALL MARITIME OVERLAPPING FUNCTIONS," including provisions touching port safety, IMO conventions, maritime enforcement, dangerous goods and port security. The ministry said the text still assigns those functions to the new agency.
The ministry cited multiple examples:
- Port safety standards: The opinion cited a provision that requires the new agency to ensure ports comply with LiMA regulations and international best practice on passenger and cargo safety. Hare-Konowa said the revision does not eliminate overlap because it preserves an independent "ensure" authority that keeps the conflict alive.
- IMO conventions: The bill still says the new regulator will coordinate with LiMA to support implementation of IMO conventions and related protocols. Hare-Konowa argued that "coordination" does not equal deletion and that lawmakers misrepresented the bill if treaty-related authority remains embedded in the law.
- Vessel inspection and certification: The ministry pointed to provisions that authorize inspections of "seacrafts, vessels, engines, propellers" and related equipment, as well as the issuance, suspension or revocation of certificates. The opinion said those powers overlap with LiMA's ability to regulate shipping standards.
- Dangerous goods transport: The bill incorporates the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code and requires compliance for dangerous shipments coming into or leaving Liberian waters. Hare-Konowa said the Senate described this section as removed, but the language remains.
- Port facility acquisition and operations: The opinion cited provisions allowing the new agency to accept donations, acquire or lease port property, and facilitate development and operation of ports, including dry harbors and docks. The ministry said that authority moves beyond oversight into operational control.
The ministry said the bill reflects a pattern: lawmakers claimed deletions that "do not exist," presented revisions as meaningful even when they were "nominal or cosmetic," and framed modifications as corrective even when they did not narrow the new regulator's scope.
Regulator and operator in one body
The Justice Ministry also attacked the bill's structure as a governance risk. Hare-Konowa argued that international best practice discourages regulators from running commercial operations because it invites conflicts of interest and weakens enforcement credibility.
She said the bill violates that principle by allowing the new agency to regulate port safety and training standards while also acquiring, establishing, improving, operating and maintaining port facilities.
The ministry warned that this creates incentives for favoritism. If the same agency operates ports, it may design and enforce rules in ways that benefit its own revenue, potentially undermining competitors, private operators, or even state-owned port entities.
The opinion referenced examples raised earlier in the debate -- including Kenya, Nigeria and Singapore -- where governance models either separate regulatory functions from operations or divide authority to avoid conflicts.
A bill sold as decentralization, but written like centralization
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Lawmakers have marketed the reform package as decentralization meant to modernize port operations and reduce bottlenecks by empowering coastal cities. But the Justice Ministry said the regulatory bill points in the opposite direction.
Hare-Konowa cited language that transfers port docks and harbors in Monrovia, Buchanan, Greenville and Harper to the new regulator. If applied as written, the ministry said, the bill would consolidate port assets and authority under a single central agency -- undermining the decentralization message used to sell the legislation publicly.
The ministry said the bill also fails to explain how the new centralized regulator would relate to any autonomous port authorities envisioned under separate decentralization legislation, leaving the government's overall policy direction unclear.
The constitutional crossfire
The Justice Ministry acknowledged that the Legislature holds broad lawmaking authority under Article 34(l) and cited Supreme Court precedent that courts usually do not evaluate whether legislation is wise, only whether it is lawful.
But Hare-Konowa framed this dispute as a question of governance and implementability, one the Constitution assigns directly to the President through veto power.
Under Article 35, she argued, the President's veto serves as a constitutional check to prevent dysfunctional or contradictory laws from taking effect, especially when implementation falls on the Executive branch.
Hare-Konowa told the President he can block legislation that creates operational contradictions, mandates conflicts with existing agencies, or undermines coherent public administration.
