ZWEDRU, Grand Gedeh County — A Liberian citizen residing in the United States has accused local authorities of demanding fees that he believes are not supported by Liberia’s public land laws and guidelines.
By Selma Lomax, selma.lomax@frontpagefricaonline.com
The dispute involves Charles Manakpalah, a Liberian based in the United States, and Grand Gedeh County Resident Surveyor Jerry Roland Gayeko over an 11-acre parcel of land located in John Davis Town. The community, situated in a remote section of the county, has a population estimated at fewer than 100 residents and is the site of land that Manakpalah says he has been attempting to legally acquire through the government’s public land purchase process.
According to Manakpalah, the process reached a critical stage when he sought final survey approval and documentation necessary for the issuance of a deed. However, he alleges that the process stalled after Resident Surveyor Forkpah reportedly insisted on payment of US$150 per lot before he would sign the survey documents.
Manakpalah maintains that the demand is inconsistent with both the Public Lands Law and the procedures outlined in the Liberia Land Authority’s guidelines governing the purchase of public land.
He argues that while the law requires applicants to pay legitimate survey costs and administrative fees, he has not found any legal provision authorizing a blanket charge of US$150 per lot in connection with a rural public land transaction.
Documents reviewed by FrontPage Africa in connection with the matter indicate that Liberia’s Public Lands Law establishes procedures for citizens seeking to acquire public land and historically provided a schedule of fees for survey work.
The law requires applicants to pay survey-related costs but does not specifically reference a US$150-per-lot charge. Similarly, the 2011 Interim Public Land Sale and Deed Issuance Guidelines require applicants to cover the cost of surveys, public notices, and other administrative processes, but do not explicitly establish a fixed charge of US$150 per lot.
Manakpalah argues that the absence of such a provision is central to the dispute. According to him, if the amount being demanded is lawful, government authorities should be able to identify the exact statute, regulation, policy directive, or approved fee schedule authorizing the charge and provide documentation to support it.
“The issue before us is not whether citizens should pay legitimate government fees. Every responsible citizen understands that public land transactions involve costs. The issue is whether an official can demand a specific amount without providing the legal authority under which that amount is being assessed. If there is a law supporting the charge, then that law should be made available for public review,” Manakpalah said.
He further argued that the demand appears inconsistent with the spirit of the Liberia Land Authority’s own guidelines, which emphasize transparency, accountability, and clearly established procedures in public land transactions. He noted that the guidelines themselves acknowledge that public land administration has historically been affected by corruption, poor service delivery, and unclear institutional responsibilities.
“The Liberia Land Authority developed guidelines to bring transparency and predictability to public land administration. Those guidelines discuss surveys, public notices, consultations, and land pricing mechanisms, but I have yet to see any provision authorizing US$150 per lot in a small rural community such as John Davis Town. Citizens should not be expected to pay fees that cannot be clearly linked to an official government policy,” he stated.
According to Manakpalah, the dispute extends beyond his personal interest in the property and raises broader concerns for Liberians, particularly those living abroad, who frequently invest in land and development projects in their home communities. He warned that unexplained charges and administrative delays have the potential to discourage investment and undermine confidence in public institutions.
He further alleged that the refusal to sign survey documents until the disputed payment is made creates the impression that public services are being conditioned on financial demands that may not be uniformly applied across the country. He called on relevant authorities within the
Liberia Land Authority to conduct an independent review of the matter and publicly clarify the fees legally associated with public land purchases.
For his part, Forkpah has rejected suggestions that the amount in question constitutes a personal surveying fee. In a written response, Forkpah stated that the disputed amount relates to the official purchase price of public land rather than compensation for survey services.
“I would like to clarify that the amount in question does not constitute a standard land surveying service fee. Rather, it represents the official public land purchase price, which is governed by separate statutory regulations and valuation processes,” Forkpah explained.
The surveyor further indicated that he had already provided explanations regarding the issue and suggested that any additional technical questions be directed to another resident county surveyor.
“I trust that I have been of meaningful assistance to you thus far. I have taken the time to address several of your initial inquiries and have provided detailed explanations on the points you requested clarification on. However, should you require further information or have additional technical questions beyond what has already been covered, I kindly request that you direct those to another Resident County Surveyor who is better positioned to handle any remaining concerns,” Forkpah wrote.
Despite that explanation, Manakpalah remains unconvinced and insists that the burden rests on authorities to demonstrate how the amount was determined and under what legal authority it is being assessed. He argues that if the payment represents the official purchase price of public land rather than a survey fee, government records should clearly show the statutory formula or valuation process used to arrive at the amount being demanded.
“This is ultimately about transparency and accountability. No public official should be offended when a citizen requests the legal basis for a government charge. In fact, public confidence grows when officials openly provide documentation and explain how fees are calculated. That is what I have been asking for from the beginning,” Manakpalah said.
The dispute has attracted attention among residents of Grand Gedeh County and members of the Liberian diaspora, many of whom view the matter as a broader test of accountability within Liberia’s land governance system. As questions continue to mount regarding the legality of the disputed charge, observers say intervention from senior officials of the Liberia Land Authority may be necessary to determine whether the fee being demanded is consistent with existing laws and guidelines.
For now, the survey documents remain unsigned, the transaction remains unresolved, and calls are growing for greater transparency in the administration of public lands across Liberia.
