From the Freeport of Monrovia to driver’s licensing, immigration permits and national identification, successive governments have turned to private companies to perform important public services. But where does government responsibility end, and where does private control begin?
By Lyndon J. Ponnie Sr.
MONROVIA — Liberia’s growing reliance on private companies to perform functions traditionally handled by government institutions is raising fundamental questions about constitutional responsibility, legislative oversight, public-sector employment, national security and the authority of statutory agencies.
From the Freeport of Monrovia to driver’s licensing, immigration documentation and the proposed national digital identification system, successive administrations have entered into arrangements that allow private companies to operate, manage or provide services that fall within the responsibilities of public institutions.
The central question is no longer simply whether outsourcing can make government services more efficient. It is whether the government is properly exercising its constitutional and statutory responsibilities when functions assigned to agencies created by Acts of the Legislature are transferred, in whole or in part, to private companies.
The issue deserves serious public scrutiny because government agencies are not established merely to occupy offices or provide employment. They are created through laws that define their responsibilities, powers and obligations to the Liberian people.
Article 89 of the 1986 Constitution establishes certain autonomous public commissions and provides that the Legislature shall enact laws governing them and create other agencies necessary for the effective operation of government.
Although Article 89 does not prohibit the government from contracting private companies, it reinforces the importance of legislative authority in establishing public institutions. The constitutional question is whether an executive administration can use a private contract to transfer responsibilities that the Legislature assigned to a public institution without sufficient legal authority or legislative approval.
THE LAW DOES NOT GIVE GOVERNMENT A BLANK CHEQUE
Liberia’s Public Procurement and Concessions Act recognizes outsourcing and concessions as legitimate arrangements. The Act defines outsourcing as a situation in which a government or public entity contracts a private company to provide a public service continuously.
The law also identifies objectives of concessions, including increasing government revenue, attracting private-sector investment and technical expertise, improving services and developing infrastructure.
That means outsourcing is not automatically unconstitutional or illegal.
However, the existence of an outsourcing provision does not mean that every public function can be transferred without restriction. The government must still demonstrate that the arrangement complies with the relevant agency’s establishing law, procurement and concession requirements, public financial management rules and any applicable legislative approval process.
There is a major difference between hiring a company to print identification cards and giving that company effective control over the national identification system. There is also a difference between contracting a company to provide technical support and transferring the authority to issue licences, impose penalties or collect public revenue.
The lawfulness of each arrangement must therefore be examined against the specific powers assigned to the institution by law.
THE FREEPORT: A PUBLIC PORT UNDER PRIVATE TERMINAL OPERATIONS
The outsourcing debate is not new.
During the administration of former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, when Joseph Boakai served as Vice President, the government entered into a 25-year concession agreement with APM Terminals in September 2010.
The company took over operations of the Freeport of Monrovia’s container and general cargo terminal in February 2011.
The arrangement brought private investment and operational expertise into the port, but it also established an important precedent: a major function of a public port could be operated by a private concessionaire while the National Port Authority retained its public institutional responsibilities.
The arrangement was a concession, not the dissolution of the NPA. Nevertheless, it raises questions about the balance between the authority’s statutory responsibilities and the operational powers granted to a private company.
Who monitors the concession? How effectively does the NPA enforce its regulatory responsibilities? What revenue does the state receive, and what measurable public benefits have resulted from the agreement?
These questions remain relevant whenever public infrastructure is operated under long-term private concessions.
TRANSPORT MINISTRY: A 25-YEAR AGREEMENT AND WORKERS’ CONCERNS
Another major example concerns the Ministry of Transport.
The Liberia Traffic Management Inc. arrangement was ratified in 2018 under the administration of former President George Weah. The Boakai administration subsequently moved to implement it.
The agreement covers important traffic-related services, including driver’s licensing, vehicle registration, inspection and enforcement.
In July 2025, Ministry of Transport workers protested the arrangement, raising concerns about job security and the transfer of government responsibilities to the private company.
Reporting by The Liberian Investigator described a 70-percent revenue share for the company and 30 percent for the government. Those figures should be verified against the complete ratified agreement and its financial annexes before being treated as the definitive contractual terms.
The questions are substantial.
If the Ministry of Transport was established to regulate and administer transport-related services, what functions can legally be transferred to a private company? Does the ministry retain effective control over licensing standards, enforcement and revenue collection? What happens to employees whose responsibilities are transferred?
A government may contract a company to provide technical and operational services. But it must not use a commercial agreement to avoid its statutory responsibilities or weaken the authority of the public institution.
IMMIGRATION: FOREIGN COMPANY AND RESIDENCE PERMITS
The Liberia Immigration Service has also relied on private contractors for the production and digitization of alien resident permits.
Contec Global Liberia Limited, an Indian company, received a government contract in 2021 to digitize resident permits and related services.
In August 2024, aa local newspapee reported complaints about delays in the production of permits and questions about the contractor’s performance. The Immigration Service’s Deputy Commissioner General, Attorney Dixon N. Tamba, disputed claims that the company had stopped issuing permits, saying that more than 3,000 cards had been printed.
The controversy raises a fundamental question about the division of responsibilities between the Immigration Service and its private contractor.
Immigration is not an ordinary commercial activity. The state must retain authority over who is admitted, registered, granted residence and permitted to remain in Liberia.
A private company may provide technology, print cards and support administrative systems. But the legal authority to approve immigration status and enforce immigration laws must remain with the appropriate public authorities.
The government must also explain how applicants’ payments are divided, who controls the records, what access immigration officers have to the system and what happens if the contract is terminated.
NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION: A US$52 MILLION QUESTION
Perhaps the most consequential current example is the proposed national digital identification and civil-registration concession between the Government of Liberia and OeSD International GmbH, an Austrian company.
The proposed agreement has been reported at approximately US$52 million to US$54.7 million and is structured as a build-operate-transfer arrangement.
Under the proposal, the company would finance, develop and operate the system before transferring it to the government under the agreement’s terms.
The National Identification Registry has maintained that it would retain its statutory responsibilities and that national identity data would remain under government control. Its Executive Director, Andrew Peters, has also said implementation cannot begin until the required legislative approval is obtained.
The proposal has nevertheless raised questions about the financial arrangement, revenue sharing, procurement transparency, local participation and protection of citizens’ biometric information.
A November 5 report by Biometric Update said the proposed financial arrangement provides for OeSD to receive 65 percent of specified revenues, with the government receiving 35 percent. The complete agreement and its annexes must be examined to establish exactly which revenues are covered and how the arrangement would operate.
The House of Representatives suspended a committee review in October after lawmakers identified missing signatures in the agreement submitted for consideration and noted the absence of representatives from several relevant institutions. The hearing was scheduled for November 4.
The agreement’s referral to the Legislature is not the same as ratification. Until the required approval is secured, the government must not treat the proposed concession as an implemented transfer of the national identification system.
This is particularly important because national identification involves more than printing cards. It concerns the identity, biometric information and personal records of Liberian citizens and foreign residents.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: CAN GOVERNMENT CONTRACT AWAY ITS RESPONSIBILITY?
The Constitution establishes the framework within which public authority must be exercised. The Legislature creates institutions and assigns them responsibilities through law; the Executive administers government in accordance with the Constitution and those laws.
Consequently, the fact that a government agency was created by an Act of the Legislature does not automatically prevent it from contracting private companies. But neither does the existence of a concession or outsourcing law give the Executive unlimited authority to transfer the agency’s statutory mandate.
The critical legal distinction is between contracting out the performance of a service and surrendering the public authority responsible for that service.
For example, a company may maintain a government database, print licences or provide enrollment equipment. But if the law assigns the power to approve licences, determine immigration status, maintain the national identity register or regulate a public port to a government institution, the government must establish the legal basis for any arrangement that allows a private company to exercise those powers.
Where a concession effectively changes the responsibilities, authority or control of a statutory institution, lawmakers and the public deserve a clear explanation of the legal authority for that change.
The question is therefore not whether government can work with private companies. It is whether the government is respecting the limits of its authority and protecting the public interest when it does so.
WHERE ARE THE JOBS AND WHAT HAPPENS TO PUBLIC SERVANTS?
There is another side of the debate that directly affects ordinary Liberians.
Government institutions employ civil servants whose salaries are paid from public resources. When their functions are transferred to private companies, the public deserves to know whether those employees are retained, reassigned, retrained or made redundant.
It would be premature to claim that outsourcing has resulted in widespread civil-service job losses without employment records. However, the protests by Transport Ministry workers show that employment concerns are real and require official answers.
If government can establish an agency, employ workers, invest public money in training and infrastructure, and later transfer major operational responsibilities to a private company, what happens to the institutional capacity built with taxpayers’ money?
Is the government developing its own technical capacity, or creating long-term dependence on contractors?
And if the company eventually leaves, will the state have the expertise, equipment, data and financial resources to resume the service?
These are questions of national development, not simply employment disputes.
WHAT SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE AND AUDITOR GENERAL EXAMINE?
The Legislature should not limit its review to whether a concession agreement promises investment or modern technology. It should examine whether each agreement is consistent with the law establishing the relevant institution.
The General Auditing Commission should also examine the financial implications of major outsourcing arrangements, including government revenue, contractor payments, public assets, contract performance and the value received by the state.
For each arrangement, lawmakers should demand:
1. The complete signed agreement, including financial and technical annexes.
2. The legal opinion establishing the government’s authority to contract out the relevant functions.
3. Evidence of compliance with the Public Procurement and Concessions Act.
4. Any required legislative ratification or approval.
5. A clear account of revenue collected, the contractor’s share and the government’s receipts.
6. The number of public employees affected and the government’s employment plan.
7. Data-protection, cybersecurity and national-security safeguards.
8. Performance reports showing whether the contractor is delivering the services promised.
9. Termination, dispute-resolution and handover provisions.
10. Evidence that the government can continue operating the service if the contractor fails or the agreement expires.
THE BOAKAI ADMINISTRATION MUST EXPLAIN ITS POLICY
President Joseph Boakai’s administration should explain whether it has a comprehensive policy governing the outsourcing of public services.
Is the government outsourcing because it lacks the financial resources, technical expertise or institutional capacity to perform these functions? If so, what is the plan to develop Liberian capacity and eventually reduce dependence on external contractors?
Why should essential services that generate public revenue be placed under long-term private arrangements without comprehensive public disclosure of the financial terms and performance obligations?
And what safeguards ensure that private companies do not acquire operational control over functions that the law reserves for public institutions?
The questions also extend to the previous administrations. The port concession began under the Sirleaf administration, while the Transport Ministry agreement was ratified under the Weah administration. The Boakai administration has continued or advanced some of these arrangements and must account for its own decisions.
The government should not assume that a contract becomes unquestionable simply because a previous administration signed it.
Ultimately, the purpose of establishing government institutions through law is to ensure that public responsibilities are exercised under public authority, with accountability to the people.
Private companies can provide expertise, technology and investment. But Liberia must be careful not to confuse the contracting of services with the transfer of government responsibility.
The public needs to know whether outsourcing is strengthening Liberia’s institutions or gradually making them dependent on private companies to perform the very functions for which they were established.
