The Supreme Court has ordered the immediate reinstatement of Dr. Dougbeh Christopher Nyan as director general of the National Public Health Institute of Liberia (NPHIL), ruling that President Joseph Nyuma Boakai's decision to remove him from office violated the Constitution because it was carried out without a legally established investigation and without affording the tenured official a proper hearing.
In a sweeping 20-page ruling delivered Feb. 16, Associate Justice in Chambers Jamesetta Howard Wolokollie held that the Executive Branch acted outside its authority when it dismissed a statutory officer protected by tenure without satisfying the removal conditions explicitly laid out in law.
"Having established that the petitioner was removed from office void of any hearing consistent with due process, our decision cannot be any different," the justice wrote. "The petitioner's removal without proof of subsequent complaints and without investigation constitutes a violation of our cherished principle of due process."
The Court granted the writ of prohibition, ordered Nyan restored to his position, and directed that he be paid all benefits he would have earned during the period of removal.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
A Removal at the Center of a Constitutional Fight
Nyan filed the petition after his dismissal on Sept. 17, 2025, arguing that the Executive Branch exercised ultra vires authority by removing him from a protected tenure position without investigation or hearing.
"The crux of the petitioner's petition is that the Executive Branch exercised ultra vires authority in removing him ... without investigating him to establish a cause consistent with due process," the ruling recounts.
The Court confirmed that Nyan had been appointed Aug. 1, 2024, under the NPHIL Act of 2016, which grants the director general a fixed five-year tenure and allows removal only under specified conditions -- such as corruption, incapacity, or conduct inimical to the public interest -- and only after due process.
The justices emphasized that statutory tenure positions limit presidential discretion.
"Public officers of this category are insulated from the President's absolute authority to dismiss at his/her will and pleasure," the opinion stated.
Government's Case: Administrative Failures and Insubordination
The dismissal originated from a resolution by the NPHIL Board of Directors recommending removal based on management complaints.
The board cited numerous administrative and management-related issues, including:
- lack of coordination with the Ministry of Health
- disregard for board authority
- communication with the President and Legislature without board knowledge
- submission of budgets without approval
- media conduct
- partner concerns
It recommended immediate removal for "grossly violating Section 4.4," being "grossly inefficient," and engaging in acts undesirable to the public interest.
The government defended the decision, arguing the President has authority to discipline officials whose conduct threatens institutional integrity.
Tenure, the government said, "does not grant immunity from accountability, legitimize incompetence, excuse insubordination or supersede the national interest."
Officials further claimed an investigation had occurred and that administrative due process began months before the termination.
The Court: No Proof of Investigation
The justices rejected the government's central defense that an investigation justified the dismissal. While the board alleged misconduct, the Court found no evidence the accusations were established through a legally valid inquiry.
"It is troubling that neither of the grounds is informed by the outcome of an investigation," the ruling said.
Even when the government insisted an investigation existed, it could not produce a report.
"The counsel maintained that an investigation was conducted, but they failed to show a copy of the investigation report," the Court wrote.
Instead, the administration relied on a February 2025 internal report that the Court said related only to a previous suspension -- not grounds for dismissal.
"We refuse to accept the respondent's argument that the referenced report represents an investigation that culminated in the dismissal," the justice held.
Due Process the Core Issue
At the center of the case was Article 20(a) of the Constitution -- the right to due process.
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, security of the person, property, privilege or any other right except as the outcome of a hearing judgment consistent with the provisions laid down in the Constitution," the Court quoted.
The justices concluded Nyan never received a fair hearing.
"From the facts above, we are baffled that the right to be heard was ignored," the opinion declared.
The Court also invoked international human rights standards ratified by Liberia, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Nyan's Defense: Broad Allegations, No Evidence
The Court reproduced a letter Nyan wrote to President Boakai on the same day he was dismissed, rejecting the Board's claims as vague and unsupported.
"The eleven counts of the Board's request for my removal are unconstitutional and do not satisfy Section 4.4(i) of the NPHIL Act of 2016," he wrote.
"The Board's allegations are broad, vague, lack specifics, lack evidence, and are functionally inaccurate."
He also said he collaborated with multiple agencies.
"I have done everything possible to work with every agency," he wrote, citing cooperation with environmental, agriculture and defense institutions.
On the allegation of direct communication with the President:
"The NPHIL Act does not prohibit the Director General from communicating with the President."
Tenure and the Limits of Presidential Power
The Court used the case to clarify a recurring constitutional question in Liberia: when can the President dismiss a statutory official?
"When a statute explicitly recognizes that a public officer shall be removed for cause, the cause must be established consistent with due process," the Court held.
The ruling stressed that public appointments create a contractual relationship between the official and the state.
"The nomination, confirmation, appointment and commissioning ... creates a contractual relationship between the appointed official and the state."
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Remedy: Reinstatement and Compensation
Because the dismissal lacked legal foundation, the Court ordered restoration of Nyan's position and pay.
"The petitioner is ordered reinstated ... and paid his just compensation as though he was reinstated for the period of service up to the end of his tenure."
The Court also reaffirmed that even if removal were justified, benefits accrued under tenure remain payable unless cause is proven.
"Where an official is removed before the expiration of his tenure for reasons other than proven cause, the state remains liable for benefits and emoluments."
A Defining Separation-of-Powers Moment
The ruling represents one of the most consequential judicial checks on executive removal power in recent years. By affirming prohibition -- an extraordinary remedy -- the Court underscored that constitutional procedure outranks administrative discretion.
"Prohibition ... gives complete relief by undoing what has been illegally or erroneously done," the Court explained.
Justice Wolokollie further emphasized the constitutional protection of contractual rights under Article 25:
"Where an official is removed from office before the expiration of his tenure for reasons other than proven cause ... the state remains liable for the benefits and emoluments that would have accrued for the remainder of the tenure."
She added that nomination, confirmation, appointment and commissioning into a tenure position establish a contractual relationship between the official and the Republic of Liberia, and that the sanctity of contract must be respected if termination occurs before expiration of those contractual rights.
