Monrovia — The Commissioner General of the Liberia Revenue Authority (LRA), James Dorbor Jallah, has urged the Ministry of Justice to advise President Joseph Nyuma Boakai to veto two major port reform bills for a second time, warning that the proposed laws contain serious legal and operational flaws that could undermine customs administration, create revenue leakages and trigger institutional conflicts.
In a July 17, 2026 letter addressed to Justice Minister and Attorney General Cllr. Oswald N. Tweh, Jallah appealed for another presidential veto of the Liberia Sea and Inland Ports Autonomy and Modernization Act of 2025 and the Act Establishing the National Ports Regulatory Commission of Liberia, both recently passed by the Legislature and awaiting presidential action.
Supporters, including members of the Legislature, argue that the Liberia Sea and Inland Ports Autonomy and Modernization Act of 2025 is intended to strengthen the regulation and sustainable development of seaport and inland port operations and services across Liberia. They say the measure would grant greater autonomy to the country's sea and inland ports. Meanwhile, the Act Establishing the National Ports Regulatory Commission of Liberia is designed to support the government's decentralization agenda by transferring the management and operation of the country's four seaports from the centralized control of the National Port Authority to a more decentralized framework. Proponents contend that the bills will promote the safe, orderly, and transparent development of port infrastructure and services while improving overall governance and efficiency in the sector.
The bills have faced stiff resistance from the Executive. The two bills were previously vetoed by President Boakai, who cited legal conflicts, overlapping regulatory mandates, structural inconsistencies with existing maritime laws, and concerns that the legislation could damage Liberia's international maritime standing.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
Jallah argued that despite efforts by the Legislature to address those concerns, significant problems remain unresolved.
According to the LRA boss, the Legislature's Committee on Maritime invited the Authority to a public hearing on July 1, providing draft copies of the legislation only one day before the meeting. The hearing was later postponed because of a lack of quorum and to allow more time for review, before being rescheduled for July 16.
However, Jallah said the Legislature proceeded to pass the bills before the rescheduled hearing could take place.
"Prior to the scheduled hearing and to our amazement, we have gathered that the draft legislation has already been passed by the Legislature," Jallah wrote.
While emphasizing that the LRA supports efforts to modernize and decentralize Liberia's port governance system, he cautioned that the legislation, in its current form, creates 14 areas of conflict, overlap and ambiguity with customs functions established under Liberia's Revenue Code.
He warned that if the bills become law without further amendments, they could result in institutional disputes, legal uncertainty, operational inefficiencies and significant losses in government revenue.
Among the Authority's concerns is what it describes as the absence of clear customs port-of-entry designation requirements for newly created ports, overlapping enforcement mandates and provisions that could weaken customs oversight.
"The Acts create fourteen areas of conflict, overlap, or ambiguity with established customs functions under the Revenue Code," Jallah wrote. "Left unresolved, these conflicts will generate institutional friction, legal uncertainty, revenue leakage, and operational inefficiency at Liberia's ports."
The LRA Commissioner General urged the Ministry of Justice to recommend that President Boakai veto the legislation once again to allow lawmakers to harmonize the bills with existing revenue and customs laws.
He identified four priority issues that should be addressed before the legislation is reconsidered, including the inclusion of a savings and supremacy clause, guaranteed LRA representation within the proposed regulatory framework, customs licensing conditions for the National Ports Regulatory Commission, and a unified offenses provision.
According to Jallah, resolving those issues would eliminate most of the identified legal conflicts while requiring only limited legislative amendments.
He also disclosed that the LRA attached a detailed memorandum identifying all conflicting provisions in both bills for the Ministry of Justice's review.
Why the LRA Is Sounding the Alarm
Unlike previous objections centered largely on governance and administrative restructuring, the LRA's latest intervention focuses squarely on customs administration and revenue collection.
James Dorbor Jallah argues that the proposed laws conflict with the Revenue Code in 14 critical areas, creating uncertainty over which institution would ultimately exercise authority over customs operations at Liberia's ports.
The LRA is particularly concerned that newly established ports could operate without clearly designated customs entry status, potentially complicating cargo inspections, import assessments and enforcement actions.
For a country where customs duties account for a substantial share of domestic revenue, even minor ambiguities can have major fiscal consequences.
Revenue authorities worldwide are generally reluctant to support legal frameworks that blur customs jurisdiction because fragmented enforcement often creates loopholes that sophisticated importers and criminal networks can exploit.
Whether all 14 concerns identified by the LRA ultimately withstand legal scrutiny remains to be determined. However, the issues raised cannot easily be dismissed because they come from the very institution responsible for collecting border revenues.
A Legislature Under Scrutiny
Equally significant is Jallah's claim that lawmakers passed the legislation before hearing concerns from one of the government's principal implementing agencies.
According to his account, the Legislature invited the LRA to review the bills but postponed the hearing because of a lack of quorum and the need for additional study. Before the rescheduled hearing could take place, however, the legislation had already been approved.
If accurate, the sequence raises questions about whether the consultation process was merely procedural rather than substantive.
Large institutional reforms often require extensive engagement with agencies whose mandates may be affected. Failure to adequately consult those institutions increases the likelihood that legal conflicts emerge after enactment rather than before.
Reform Versus Coordination
The dispute also highlights a recurring challenge in Liberia's public sector reforms.
Successive governments have pursued decentralization and institutional specialization to improve efficiency. Yet many reforms have struggled because enabling laws failed to clearly define where one agency's authority ends and another's begins.
Creating a ports regulator while preserving the statutory functions of the National Port Authority, the Liberia Revenue Authority, maritime agencies and security institutions requires careful legal drafting.
Without clear boundaries, overlapping mandates frequently lead to bureaucratic disputes, duplication of responsibilities and slower decision-making.
The LRA's recommendation that lawmakers focus on four key amendments--including a supremacy clause, LRA representation, customs licensing provisions and unified offenses--suggests that the Authority is not fundamentally opposed to reform but wants clearer legal safeguards.
Boakai's Political Dilemma
President Boakai now faces a politically delicate decision.
Analysts say approving the legislation despite objections from the government's chief revenue agency could expose his administration to criticism if implementation later produces institutional conflict or weakens customs enforcement.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Rejecting it again, however, risks straining relations with lawmakers who have already reconsidered and reintroduced the bills after the President's initial veto.
A second veto may also fuel perceptions that the administration lacks consensus on one of its flagship governance reform initiatives.
At the same time, signing legislation that senior government institutions themselves believe contains unresolved legal contradictions could prove even more costly over the long term.
What's at Stake
The debate extends well beyond legal drafting.
Liberia's ports serve as the country's principal gateways for international trade and account for a significant share of government revenue through customs duties, port fees and related taxes.
Any uncertainty over regulatory authority could affect cargo clearance, investor confidence, compliance enforcement and trade facilitation.
Conversely, a well-designed governance framework could improve operational efficiency, attract investment and strengthen Liberia's competitiveness as a regional maritime hub.
The Bottom Line
The disagreement between the Legislature and the Liberia Revenue Authority illustrates that meaningful institutional reform requires more than legislative approval--it requires legal coherence among all agencies responsible for implementation.
Whether President Boakai signs or vetoes the bills, the controversy has underscored a larger lesson: ambitious governance reforms succeed not simply because they promise modernization, but because they clearly define authority, eliminate institutional conflicts, and preserve accountability.
The President's decision will therefore shape more than the future of two bills. It will signal how his administration balances reform with institutional consensus, and whether Liberia's drive to modernize its maritime sector proceeds through compromise or renewed confrontation.
