HARPER, Maryland County — A protest at William V. S. Tubman University in Harper, Maryland County, halted academic activities on Monday morning, October 12, 2026 after protesters physically nailed shut classroom doors and administrative offices, prompting County Superintendent Nathaniel S. Toe Jr. to intervene and begin mediation.
By Peter P. Toe, Jr., peterp.toe@frontpageafricaonlince.com
The protesters are demanding the immediate interim suspension of University President Rev. Dr. Olu Q. Menjay and an independent investigation into allegations of corruption, administrative irregularities, questionable appointments, and financial mismanagement at the institution.
Reporters who visited the campus early Monday observed that the doors of classrooms, college offices, the university’s main administrative building, the administrative annex, the finance office, and the university’s radio station had been nailed shut.
The disruption left students stranded on campus, with some standing in the rain while others returned home amid heavy rainfall. The incident occurred as the university was scheduled to begin its first-semester midterm examinations.
The situation prompted Superintendent Toe to invite the protesters to his office at the Harper Administration Building, where they presented their grievances and submitted a petition addressed to President Joseph Nyuma Boakai.
Jackson Williams, a staff member of William V. S. Tubman University who spoke on behalf of the protesters, read their grievances to Superintendent Toe before submitting the full document.
The 16-page petition, dated October 12, 2026, was addressed to President Boakai through the Maryland County superintendent.
Signed by 20 individuals identified as concerned citizens and stakeholders of Liberia, the document outlines allegations involving the university’s leadership, financial administration, recruitment practices, and use of public resources.
The petitioners argue that the issues raised require an independent investigation to establish the facts and ensure accountability at the state-run institution.
They are requesting the immediate interim suspension of Menjay pending the outcome of the proposed investigation, while emphasizing that the measure should be precautionary rather than a declaration of guilt.
One of the petition’s central concerns is the legal basis of Menjay’s appointment and his continued service as university president. The petitioners cite Section 2 of the William V. S. Tubman University Charter of 2009, arguing that the appointment process must comply with the institution’s governing law and involve the appropriate authorities.
According to the document, the Executive Mansion announced on September 25, 2023, that former President George Manneh Weah had appointed Menjay to lead the university.
However, the petitioners allege that they have not seen a formal resolution of the Board of Trustees or other legally sufficient documentation establishing the full basis of the appointment.
They also question the application of Executive Order No. 123, which the petition says was issued on November 22, 2023, and are calling for a legal determination of whether it authorized Menjay’s continued service beyond January 22, 2024.
The petition requests an examination of the university charter, appointment records, Board proceedings, and other relevant documents. These claims have not been independently verified.
The petition also raises concerns about alleged nepotism and irregular appointments to senior positions at the university. One allegation concerns the reported appointment of Aaron G. Woods, identified in the document as Menjay’s maternal nephew, as Chief of Staff and Executive Assistant to the university president.
The petitioners want investigators to determine whether the appointment followed established recruitment procedures and whether the appointee’s qualifications and the circumstances surrounding the appointment were properly documented.
The document also questions the reported appointment of a Vice President for University Advancement, alleging that the process may not have followed the required recruitment and approval procedures.
Other appointments under scrutiny include positions within the university’s financial administration. The petitioners allege that search committees conducted recruitment exercises and submitted recommendations that were not followed in some final appointments.
They are calling for a review of recruitment notices, applications, interview records, committee recommendations, and appointment decisions to determine whether the processes complied with university policies.
A substantial portion of the petition focuses on executive allowances, salary increases, travel expenditures, and the use of university resources. The document alleges that Menjay receives a monthly transportation and communication allowance of US$5,000, in addition to a reported gross monthly salary of less than US$7,000.
It compares the reported allowance with the US$500 monthly transportation and communication allowance attributed to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
The petitioners are asking investigators to examine the university’s compensation policies, payroll records, budgetary allocations, and authorization procedures.
The petition also questions reported salary increases for selected employees, including an alleged increase in the monthly salary of the Director of Public Relations from approximately US$1,200 to US$2,700.
The petitioners want the relevant authorities to determine whether the adjustments were properly authorized and supported by approved salary structures and personnel records.
The allegations concerning compensation have not been independently established.
The petition further alleges that cumulative Daily Subsistence Allowance payments to the university president exceeded US$250,000 over approximately three years.
According to the document, reported allowance rates have included approximately US$1,000 per day for domestic travel and US$1,500 per day for overseas travel.
The petitioners are requesting a forensic audit of travel expenditures, including authorization forms, payment vouchers, tickets, itineraries, accommodation records, and other supporting documents.
They also question expenditures involving a student information system reportedly costing more than US$80,000 and an internet-service arrangement involving reported annual spending exceeding US$75,000.
The petition calls for investigators to examine procurement procedures, contracts, services delivered, equipment installed, and whether the expenditures represented value for money.
Additionally, the document raises concerns about the construction and management of campus commercial facilities, including a campus store, and alleged preferential treatment in supplier selection.
The petitioners want the appropriate authorities to establish whether the transactions complied with applicable procurement regulations and university policies.
The petition also calls for a review of undergraduate tuition and related charges to determine whether they comply with applicable government policies.
The petitioners argue that the university’s approved fee schedules, student invoices, payment receipts, and other records should be examined to establish whether any charges violated government policy or legal requirements. They request corrective action, including reimbursement to affected students where improper collections are established.
The document further raises concerns about alleged wrongful dismissals, delays in salary and benefit payments, and possible violations of employees’ due-process rights.
The petitioners are asking for a review of employment records, disciplinary procedures, relevant court decisions, and the university’s compliance with applicable legal requirements. The claims remain allegations pending independent verification.
Multiple Government Institutions Asked to Investigate
The petition calls for a coordinated investigation involving several public institutions, including the Ministry of Justice, Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission, General Auditing Commission, Internal Audit Agency, Liberia Revenue Authority, Civil Service Agency, Public Procurement and Concessions Commission, Ministry of Education, and National Commission on Higher Education.
The petitioners want these institutions to examine the allegations within their respective legal mandates and recommend appropriate action if wrongdoing is established.
They also call for measures to preserve university records, protect witnesses from intimidation, and prevent possible interference with the investigation.
Following his meeting with the protesters, Superintendent Toe called for mediation and urged that the university be reopened to allow academic and administrative activities to resume.
The superintendent assured the protesters that he would do everything within his authority to address the concerns raised while making efforts to ensure that their petition reaches President Boakai for consideration.
He emphasized the need to restore normal operations at the institution as discussions continue over the grievances presented.
Toe also indicated his willingness to work toward resolving issues that fall within his authority.
Following the meeting with the protesters, Superintendent Toe invited representatives of the university administration to participate in the mediation process.
As of the time of reporting, the superintendent was holding a closed-door meeting with deputies of University President Rev. Dr. Menjay at the Harper Administration Building.
Sources indicated that Menjay was outside Maryland County. His whereabouts and whether he had been formally briefed on the protest were not independently confirmed.
The university administration had not publicly responded to the allegations contained in the petition as of the time of reporting. The protest has left students uncertain about when classes and the scheduled midterm examinations will resume.
While the petitioners seek government intervention into their grievances, the superintendent is urging dialogue and the reopening of the institution. The allegations in the petition have not been independently verified, and no findings of wrongdoing have been established. Responses from the university administration and the relevant authorities will be important in determining the next steps.