MONROVIA- Ganta Support Group’s statement places enforcement of land decisions at the center of its appeal for reconciliation. The group argues that displaced owners cannot obtain justice through promises alone. Its allegations against Suah introduce a contested personal dimension that requires careful attribution and verification. The statement also rejects ethnic mobilization against Mandingo claimants and appeals for legislative support. Those positions matter in a dispute where property rights and community relations intersect. Peaceful implementation requires attention to lawful decisions and the rights of all parties. The group’s advocacy expresses one position in that process. Its criticism of obstruction must therefore remain distinguishable from independently established findings about the conduct of named individuals in this prolonged dispute. THE ANALYST reports.
GANTA, Nimba County — Ganta Support Group Inc. called on October 4, 2026, for peaceful enforcement of lawful decisions concerning the longstanding Ganta land dispute, while accusing former Ganta Mayor Amos N. G. Suah of obstruction and tribal incitement. In its statement, the group welcomed what it described as Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay’s commitment to the rule of law and enforcement of judicial decisions.
Displaced families and property claims
The group stated that displaced families had waited for decades through conferences, committees, peace initiatives and court proceedings for restoration of their legitimate property rights. It cited the Musa Hassan Bility-led land dispute committee established during President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s administration and subsequent government initiatives.
“Those families deserve more than another promise,” the group declared. “They deserve lawful decisions implemented fairly, peacefully and without discrimination.”
The group specifically accused Suah of repeatedly obstructing efforts to resolve the disputes and mobilizing tribal sentiment against Mandingo property owners. It alleged that he had participated in processes acknowledging disputed property ownership and, on occasions, helped collect money for payment to the legitimate owner.
According to the group, Suah subsequently resisted efforts to restore possession and obstructed implementation of decisions arising from the Bility-led committee and court proceedings. The group argued that his involvement was neither incidental nor unfamiliar, alleging that he recognized ownership during negotiations and payment arrangements but resisted those rights when implementation became necessary.
It asked why Suah would recognize an owner’s rights when arranging payment and then oppose those rights when courts ordered restoration. The group argued that turning enforcement into an appeal to tribal sentiment against Mandingo people undermined reconciliation, threatened community trust and prolonged displaced families’ suffering.
Equal rights and lawful enforcement
The group demanded an end to that conduct and maintained that no individual spoke for all of Nimba. It argued that no former public official had the right to mobilize one community against another to frustrate lawful decisions.
It emphasized that Mandingo people were part of Nimba and Liberia and entitled to the same protection as every other citizen. The group maintained that ethnicity could not erase a valid property claim and political influence could not replace evidence before a court.
Regarding Suah’s reported incarceration, the group cited a Judiciary statement saying that the matter arose from a contempt ruling by the Gompa City Magisterial Court and that the Chief Justice did not interfere. The group opposed portraying the detention as tribal persecution or personal retaliation without supporting evidence and urged that any challenge proceed through lawful procedures.
The group also condemned efforts to target the Chief Justice or other judicial officers for upholding lawful decisions. It called for an end to intimidation, personal attacks and impeachment demands intended to frustrate restoration of legitimate property rights.
“We will firmly and peacefully resist such campaigns through lawful public advocacy,” the group stated. “Any genuine allegation of judicial misconduct must be supported by evidence and addressed through the appropriate constitutional process.”
Appeal to lawmakers and communities
The group urged the Nimba Legislative Caucus to defend the rule of law, discourage tribal incitement and support peaceful implementation of lawful decisions. It argued that the caucus must represent all Nimbaians, including displaced families and minority communities, and use its influence to help bring the dispute to a lawful conclusion.
Addressing Nimba residents, the group stated that the dispute could not remain unresolved indefinitely. It maintained that reconciliation required fairness to displaced owners and respect for all parties’ rights, rather than requiring families to abandon legitimate claims because restoration was politically inconvenient.
The group pledged to oppose attempts to politicize the disputes, inflame tribal divisions or delay lawful restoration. It called on community leaders, public officials and citizens to support peaceful implementation and insist that disagreements be resolved through evidence and lawful procedures.
“Nimba belongs to all its people,” the group declared. “Peace requires equal justice. Reconciliation requires respect for legitimate rights.”
“The time for obstruction must end,” it added. “The time for lawful restoration has come.”