MONROVIA – A sharp institutional confrontation is unfolding within Liberia’s governance architecture as the Independent Information Commission moves decisively against a controversial Civil Service Agency directive mandating non-disclosure agreements for all public employees. At stake is not merely administrative procedure, but the fundamental balance between transparency and secrecy in a democratic state. The Commission’s response signals a broader constitutional and legal contest over the primacy of the Freedom of Information Act, raising concerns about whether bureaucratic controls could erode public access to information. As THE ANALYST’s Matthew H. Turry reports, with implications for accountability, whistleblower protection, and institutional trust, the dispute underscores a deeper struggle over governance standards in Liberia’s public sector.
IIC boss Joash T Hodges
A significant institutional clash has emerged within Liberia’s public governance framework following a strong rejection by the Independent Information Commission (IIC) of a directive issued by the Civil Service Agency (CSA) mandating all civil servants to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) as a formal condition of employment.
The Commission, acting within its statutory mandate to oversee and enforce the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, has warned that the CSA’s directive undermines the legal foundation of transparency in Liberia and risks eroding public access to information guaranteed under law.
The Civil Service Agency, in its directive issued on April 2, 2026, announced that all civil servants would be required to sign NDAs as part of their employment obligations. According to the CSA, the measure is intended to reinforce Section 59 of the Civil Service Human Resource Policy Manual, which mandates confidentiality in the handling of official information and seeks to strengthen institutional integrity, enhance information security, and promote accountability in the management of public records.
However, before the directive could gain traction across government institutions, the Independent Information Commission issued a swift and comprehensive response, asserting that while confidentiality has its place within public administration, it must not override statutory obligations of transparency.
The Commission emphasized that the FOI framework clearly establishes that NDAs cannot be used as instruments to restrict access to information that the law requires to be public. It further stated that any agreement or administrative measure that seeks to prevent, delay, or discourage lawful disclosure is inconsistent with the FOI Act and therefore invalid.
Citing Chapter 1, Section 1.7 of the FOI Act, the Commission reiterated that the Act holds legal primacy over any conflicting administrative policy. This provision, according to the IIC, renders any NDA or internal directive unenforceable if it attempts to limit the statutory right of access to information.
The Commission also reminded public institutions that the scope of the FOI Act is broad and inclusive. Under Chapter 1, Section 1.6, the Act applies not only to public authorities but also to private entities performing public functions or receiving public funds. This means that the obligations of transparency extend across a wide spectrum of institutions operating within Liberia’s governance ecosystem.
Further reinforcing its position, the IIC highlighted the proactive disclosure requirements embedded within the FOI Act. Chapter 2, Section 2.5 mandates that public authorities must publish key categories of information as soon as they are generated or received, regardless of whether a formal request has been made. This provision is central to promoting transparency and ensuring that citizens have timely access to information.
The Commission elaborated that such information includes enabling legislation, policies, procedures, financial records, material contracts, organizational structures, and mechanisms for appealing decisions. These requirements, it stressed, are not optional but constitute a legal obligation that cannot be curtailed by confidentiality agreements.
In addressing concerns about confidentiality, the Commission acknowledged that certain categories of information must indeed be protected. However, it clarified that such protection must be narrowly defined and consistent with the exemptions provided under the FOI Act.
The Commission cited Chapter 4, Section 4.8, which states that information cannot be withheld solely because it is labeled confidential or secret. Any refusal to disclose information must meet specific legal criteria and fall within recognized exemptions under the law.
The IIC also referenced provisions within the Code of Conduct for Public Officials and Employees of Government, particularly Part III, Sections 3.6 and 3.11, which emphasize openness and transparency while also recognizing the need to protect legitimately confidential information. These provisions, the Commission noted, must be interpreted in harmony with the FOI Act and do not authorize blanket secrecy.
In addition, the Commission underscored constitutional protections relating to privacy. Article 16 of the 1986 Constitution guarantees individuals protection from unwarranted interference with their privacy, except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction. Complementing this, Chapter 4, Section 4.5 of the FOI Act provides safeguards against the disclosure of personal information that would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy.
A critical concern raised by the Commission relates to the potential impact of NDAs on whistleblower protections. The IIC pointed to Chapter 7, Section 7.5 of the FOI Act, which protects individuals who disclose information in good faith from civil and criminal liability. It warned that NDAs must not impose penalties or sanctions on public officials who make lawful disclosures under the Act.
The Commission further argued that improperly structured NDAs could undermine the Whistleblower Act of 2021, which provides legal protection for individuals reporting corruption, criminal activity, or misconduct within public and private institutions.
In light of these concerns, the IIC has called for all NDAs to explicitly recognize the primacy of the FOI Act and to clearly define what constitutes confidential information in accordance with legal standards. It also emphasized the need for comprehensive training of public servants to ensure a clear understanding of the distinction between confidential information and information subject to disclosure.
The Commission warned against the use of NDAs as tools to create fear, uncertainty, or unlawful secrecy within the public service, stressing that transparency must remain the guiding principle of governance.
To ensure compliance, the IIC has directed that all existing NDA frameworks across government institutions be reviewed. Any provisions found to be inconsistent with the FOI Act must be revised or removed. The Commission further indicated that it will actively monitor the implementation of NDAs and take appropriate action where non-compliance is identified.
Reaffirming its position, the Commission stated that transparency is the legal standard, while confidentiality is the exception, and that all confidentiality measures must be justified within the framework of the law.
Meanwhile, the Civil Service Agency has maintained that the introduction of mandatory NDAs is aimed at strengthening institutional integrity and safeguarding official information. The CSA also warned that failure or refusal by civil servants to comply with the directive could result in administrative and payroll consequences, including possible restrictions on salary processing and a review of employment status in accordance with civil service regulations.
The unfolding disagreement between the two institutions highlights a broader tension within Liberia’s governance system—one that pits administrative control against legal transparency. It raises critical questions about how public institutions interpret and implement laws governing access to information, and whether internal policies can coexist with statutory obligations without undermining democratic principles.
For observers, the dispute represents more than a bureaucratic disagreement. It is a test of Liberia’s commitment to open governance, accountability, and the rule of law. The resolution of this issue will likely set an important precedent for how transparency and confidentiality are balanced within the public sector.
As the debate continues, the implications extend beyond government offices to the broader public, whose right to access information remains at the center of this unfolding institutional contest.