MONROVIA – The University of Liberia (UL) is heading into a damaging test of authority. Its administration has ordered faculty and staff back to work on Monday, August 17. The faculty and staff union has flatly rejected that directive. It has instead ordered all its members to remain at home. At issue are unresolved disputes over salaries, benefits and deteriorating campus conditions. The union also questions the legitimacy of the current temporary leadership. Commitments reportedly made to the union have not been fully honored. As THE ANALYST reports, the collision now openly threatens the university’s planned August 25 reopening. Students, parents and other stakeholders are left waiting anxiously. Whether either side blinks will shape the outcome.
The planned resumption of academic activities at the University of Liberia (UL) has been thrown into fresh uncertainty. The University Administration and Board of Trustees ordered faculty and staff to return to work on Monday, August 17, 2026, but the University of Liberia Faculty and Staff Association (ULFASA) has categorically rejected the directive and instructed members to remain at home.
The conflicting positions, issued on Friday, August 14, have cast doubt over whether the university can meet its announced target of resuming classes on Tuesday, August 25, 2026. Both sides now appear locked in competing directives.
In a memorandum jointly issued by UL President Dr. Layli Maparyan and Board of Trustees Chair Senator Numene T. H. Bartekwa, the administration directed all faculty and staff to report on-site at 8:00 a.m. Monday. It said administrative offices would resume full operations while academic departments prepared for the orderly resumption of classes on August 25.
The directive described attendance as mandatory. It warned that “disruption, unauthorized absence, and non-compliance will be addressed in accordance with institutional policy.”
The administration further underscored its expectation of compliance. “We expect every employee to report on Monday and fulfill their professional obligations to our students, the university, and the nation,” the memorandum stated.
The directive was immediately rejected by ULFASA, which accused the administration and Board of Trustees of adopting a “heavy-handed” approach to the prolonged crisis. In a strongly worded statement issued the same day, the union said its leadership had acted on mandates from its joint General Assembly.
ULFASA said it “categorically rejects the official directive issued by the University Administration and the Board of Trustees.” It described the order as “an act of institutional intimidation that bypasses the core issues currently paralyzing our state-run institution.”
The association instructed members, including professors, part-time lecturers and administrative staff, to ignore the mandate. “There will be no resumption of academic activities on Monday,” it declared, effectively placing the return-to-work order on a collision course with an indefinite disengagement.
Faculty Cites Unresolved Grievances
At the center of the dispute are financial, administrative and working-condition grievances that ULFASA says remain unresolved. The association maintains that commitments reportedly made during recent engagements with President Joseph Nyuma Boakai, university authorities and the central government have not been fully implemented.
According to ULFASA, “the commitments made by the university leadership and central government have not been fully actualized on the ground.” The union said it would not return until what it considers fundamental benchmarks are addressed.
Among its principal demands is the appointment of a legitimate interim president, on the argument that the mandate of the current temporary leadership has expired. “We demand that the Board of Trustees immediately appoint a legitimate interim president to steer the university forward,” the association stated.
ULFASA is also demanding settlement of outstanding salary arrears, treatment disparities and the remaining 50 percent of adjunct and overload payment backlogs from the first semester. On compensation, it wants “immediate implementation of the October 2021 agreement guaranteeing a 40% salary increment, alongside the signing of a formal Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).”
Other demands include the restoration and remittance of employee benefits. The union specifically cited National Social Security and Welfare Corporation (NASSCORP) contributions and functional group medical insurance, saying it wants “full restoration and remittance of standard employee benefits.”
Campus Conditions Become Major Flashpoint
Beyond salaries and benefits, ULFASA has placed the physical condition of the university among its major grievances. It described conditions at some facilities as unacceptable, citing deplorable classrooms, dilapidated restrooms, a lack of staff transportation and inadequate operational funding for essential academic units.
The association demanded “immediate disbursement of funds to rectify the unacceptable classroom environments, dilapidated campus restrooms, lack of staff transportation, and zero operational funding for essential academic units.” It framed the demand as a defense of both faculty welfare and the quality of education offered to students.
In its conclusion on conditions, the union was emphatic. “We reiterate our love for our students and our country, but we refuse to continue teaching under sub-human campus conditions and financial starvation,” it said.
Administration Insists on Resumption
Despite the rejection, the UL Administration and Board of Trustees maintain that the academic calendar must be upheld. Their August 14 memorandum emphasized that the return-to-work order followed a directive of the Board and that all staff were expected to fulfill their professional obligations.
The administration said the two bodies remained “fully aligned in upholding our academic calendar and maintaining professional standards across campus.” Its position sets up a direct confrontation with ULFASA, which has warned members against complying.
The disagreement has created a significant question over the university’s ability to prepare for the August 25 reopening. That question sharpens if academic and administrative personnel remain disengaged.
ULFASA Escalates Position
In its latest statement, ULFASA went beyond rejecting the order and declared several senior officials “persona non grata” on University of Liberia campuses. Those named are President Dr. Layli Maparyan, Dr. Lester Tenny, Board of Trustees Chair Senator Numene T. H. Bartekwa and the Associate Vice President for Human Resources.
The association said its General Assembly “has lost total confidence in key figures of the current administration.” It also said it had activated campus task forces at Capitol Hill, Fendall, the Medical School and Sinje to monitor entryways and secure offices during the disengagement.
The union said the task forces were activated “to ensure total compliance with this strike action.” It warned supervisors and administrators against attempting to force, threaten or sanction employees who comply with the stay-away order.
Any official attempting to do so, ULFASA said, “will face severe institutional and union resistance.” The warning further hardened the standoff between the two sides.
August 25 Resumption Now in Doubt
With the administration insisting on a Monday return and ULFASA directing members to stay away, the University of Liberia faces a potentially prolonged standoff. The immediate issue is whether enough faculty and staff will return to prepare for classes by August 25, or whether the dispute will force another delay.
For students and parents awaiting the reopening of the country’s premier public university, the conflicting directives have left the resumption date in limbo. The administration says it remains committed to the calendar, while ULFASA insists that returning without addressing grievances would only prolong the crisis.
The association’s position is unequivocal: “Until a new leadership framework is legally established and our physical and financial safety is guaranteed, the disengagement remains total and absolute.” The administration, meanwhile, has invoked institutional policy and professional obligations in demanding compliance.
The coming days are therefore likely to determine whether the two sides can reach a compromise or whether the university will enter another period of disruption. For now, the August 25 resumption date remains overshadowed by the unresolved dispute between the administration and its faculty and staff.