Abstract
Disorderly conduct among military personnel represents an important concern in military administration, criminal justice, public order, and national security. Military personnel are entrusted with responsibilities that require discipline, professionalism, respect for lawful authority, and compliance with national laws.
When members of the Armed Forces of Liberia (AFL) engage in fighting, threatening behavior, public disturbances, abusive conduct, or other forms of misconduct, their actions may raise questions concerning military discipline, criminal liability, institutional accountability, and public confidence in the armed forces.
This article examines the understanding of disorderly conduct from a Liberian military and criminal justice perspective. It analyzes the legal and institutional framework governing the conduct of AFL personnel, with particular attention to the National Defense Act of 2008, Chapter 8, the Penal Law of Liberia, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and the constitutional principles of due process and equal protection.
It also examines the respective roles of military commanders, the AFL Military Police Unit, military disciplinary authorities, the Liberia National Police (LNP), and the Ministry of Justice in investigating and responding to alleged misconduct.
The article argues that disorderly conduct involving military personnel must be assessed according to the specific facts, the elements of the alleged offense, the applicable military regulations, and the relevant provisions of Liberian law.
Military status does not automatically excuse an individual from civilian criminal responsibility, nor does every public disturbance automatically constitute a military offense. The article therefore distinguishes administrative discipline, military disciplinary proceedings, and civilian criminal prosecution. It further discusses the importance of impartial investigations, evidence preservation, proportional sanctions, respect for human rights, command responsibility, and institutional transparency.
The article concludes that a disciplined and accountable armed force is essential to democratic governance, civilian protection, and the preservation of public trust in Liberia. Strengthening military justice education, clarifying procedures for handling misconduct, and ensuring cooperation between military and civilian justice institutions can help reinforce the AFL’s professional identity as a force committed to the rule of law.
Keywords: Disorderly conduct, Armed Forces of Liberia, military discipline, UCMJ, military police, criminal investigation, military justice, rule of law, public order, Liberia.
Introduction
Military discipline is a fundamental requirement for the effective functioning of every professional armed force. Unlike ordinary civilian organizations, military institutions operate through a structured chain of command, clearly defined responsibilities, specialized training, and rules governing obedience, conduct, readiness, and accountability. The effectiveness of a military organization depends not only on its equipment, personnel, and operational capacity but also on the character, discipline, and legal responsibility of its members.
In Liberia, the Armed Forces of Liberia serves as the country’s national military institution under the authority of the Ministry of National Defense and the constitutional command structure. The transformation of the AFL following Liberia’s civil conflict has made professionalism, civilian protection, institutional accountability, and public confidence important considerations in military governance. These principles are particularly relevant when military personnel are accused of engaging in disorderly conduct.
Disorderly conduct can occur in different circumstances. A soldier may engage in a public fight, threaten another person, create an unreasonable disturbance, use abusive language in a public setting, behave disruptively in military barracks, or engage in conduct that brings the military institution into disrepute.
However, the legal classification of such conduct depends on the circumstances. A disagreement between two individuals, for example, is not automatically a criminal offense, while a fight that creates public alarm or causes injury may raise more serious legal questions.
The issue becomes more complex when the alleged offender is a member of the military. A civilian who creates a public disturbance may be investigated under the applicable provisions of the Penal Law. A soldier who engages in similar behavior may also face military scrutiny because members of the armed forces are subject to additional standards of conduct. These standards arise from military regulations, the chain of command, service obligations, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Liberia’s National Defense Act of 2008 provides an important legal foundation for understanding this relationship. Section 8.4 expressly states that members of the AFL are subject to the UCMJ whether on duty or off duty. The same provision recognizes that military personnel are entitled to the legal protections and safeguards available to other Liberian citizens. Section 8.5 also requires AFL members to respect human rights and prohibits torture, mistreatment, abuse, and degrading behavior.
These provisions establish a significant principle: military discipline and individual legal rights must operate together. The armed forces require effective disciplinary authority, but that authority must be exercised consistently with applicable law and due process.
The central concern of this article is therefore not merely whether a soldier can be punished for disorderly conduct. It is whether the alleged conduct satisfies the elements of a recognized offense, which institution should investigate it, how the military and civilian justice systems should interact, and what safeguards are necessary to ensure that justice is administered fairly.
Statement of the problem
Disorderly conduct involving military personnel can generate confusion about jurisdiction, investigative authority, and the applicable legal framework. Some members of the public may believe that every misconduct allegation against a soldier must be handled exclusively by the military. Others may assume that a soldier accused of a public disturbance should automatically be treated like any other civilian without considering military regulations.
Both assumptions can be incomplete.
The AFL has an institutional responsibility to investigate alleged violations of military regulations and maintain discipline. At the same time, Liberia’s civilian justice institutions have responsibilities where alleged conduct constitutes a civilian criminal offense. Official reporting by the Ministry of National Defense has documented cases in which the AFL Military Police Unit investigated allegations against military personnel and findings were subsequently forwarded to the Ministry of Justice.
The problem, therefore, concerns how these responsibilities should be coordinated without compromising impartiality, the rights of the accused, the interests of victims, or the integrity of the investigation.
Conceptual Understanding of Disorderly Conduct
Definition of disorderly conduct
Disorderly conduct generally refers to behavior that unlawfully disrupts public order, causes or threatens public inconvenience or alarm, or creates an unreasonable disturbance under circumstances defined by law.
Under Section 17.3 of Liberia’s Penal Law, a person may commit disorderly conduct when, with the intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk of such consequences, the person engages in specified behavior. The provision includes fighting or threatening behavior, violent or tumultuous conduct, unreasonable noise, offensively coarse utterances or gestures, abusive language addressed to a person present, and the creation of certain hazardous or physically offensive conditions without a legitimate purpose.
Section 17.3 further distinguishes between conduct graded as a second-degree misdemeanor under specified aggravating circumstances and conduct otherwise treated as an infraction. The precise classification depends on the statutory elements and circumstances of the case.
This definition is important because it demonstrates that disorderly conduct is not simply a label applied whenever someone behaves rudely or behaves in a way that others dislike. The legal elements must be established.
For example, a soldier who disagrees verbally with another person has not necessarily committed disorderly conduct. The relevant questions include whether the exchange involved conduct covered by the statute, whether the required mental state existed, whether the behavior occurred in a legally relevant public context, and whether any defense or other legal consideration applies.
Disorderly conduct in a military setting: Military disorderly conduct can have a wider institutional significance than a comparable disturbance in ordinary civilian life. Military personnel are expected to maintain discipline, exercise judgment, respect lawful orders, and avoid conduct that compromises safety or the performance of official responsibilities.
Examples of behavior that may raise military disciplinary concerns include:
Fighting or threatening another service member in military quarters.
Disrupting an official military activity.
Using abusive behavior toward colleagues or members of the public in circumstances governed by military regulations.
Engaging in threatening communications that violate applicable military provisions.
Creating a disturbance while armed or while responsible for military equipment.
Disobeying a lawful order connected to the incident.
Engaging in conduct that violates a valid service regulation or undermines the performance of military duties.
These examples do not automatically establish a particular charge. Each allegation must be assessed under the applicable law and regulations.
A soldier’s conduct may be legally relevant to both civilian public order and military discipline. The military dimension arises from the person’s service obligations and the specific provisions that govern military conduct.
Distinguishing misconduct from a criminal offense: Not every breach of professional standards constitutes a crime. This distinction is central to fair disciplinary administration.
A soldier may violate a unit’s internal rules by arriving late, speaking disrespectfully during an official activity, or failing to follow a lawful administrative procedure. Depending on the applicable rules, these matters may be addressed through administrative or disciplinary channels without constituting separate civilian criminal offenses.
Conversely, a soldier who assaults a civilian or causes unlawful damage to property may face civilian criminal liability in addition to any applicable military proceedings.
Three categories should therefore be distinguished:
Administrative misconduct: A breach of internal rules or professional expectations addressed through authorized administrative procedures.
Military disciplinary misconduct: Conduct prohibited by applicable military law, regulations, or orders and subject to the military justice system.
Civilian criminal conduct: Conduct that satisfies the elements of an offense under Liberian criminal law and may be investigated and prosecuted by civilian authorities.
These categories can overlap. The correct classification depends on the facts and the applicable legal provisions.
Historical and Institutional Context of Military Discipline in Liberia
The importance of professional military reform
Liberia’s history demonstrates why military discipline and civilian accountability matter. During the country’s civil conflicts, abuses associated with armed actors seriously damaged public confidence in security institutions. The post-conflict rebuilding of state institutions has consequently placed importance on professionalism, constitutional governance, civilian protection, and the rule of law.
The modern AFL operates within a constitutional and statutory framework intended to establish a professional national military institution. The National Defense Act of 2008 provides a legal structure for military organization, service obligations, and standards of conduct.
This historical context does not mean that every present-day allegation reflects institutional failure. Rather, it explains why allegations of misconduct must be addressed seriously, fairly, and transparently. A military institution’s credibility depends partly on its ability to demonstrate that uniformed personnel are subject to lawful standards and that violations are not ignored because of rank, personal relationships, or institutional convenience.
Military discipline and democratic governance: In a democratic state, the military must remain subject to the Constitution and applicable laws. Its authority is not a substitute for civilian constitutional government.
Military discipline supports this principle by requiring personnel to understand the limits of their authority. A uniform does not grant unlimited power to intimidate civilians, engage in unlawful violence, or disregard the rights of others.
Section 8.2 of the National Defense Act establishes standards of conduct for AFL personnel, while Section 8.3 addresses political neutrality. Section 8.5 addresses respect for human rights. Together, these provisions form part of the statutory framework for responsible military conduct.
A professional soldier must understand that discipline involves both obedience to lawful command and compliance with the law. An order cannot be treated as a general exemption from legal responsibility.
The Legal Framework Governing AFL Personnel: The National Defense Act of 2008
The National Defense Act of 2008 is the principal statutory starting point for understanding the AFL’s legal obligations. Chapter 8 addresses the code of conduct for AFL personnel. Its provisions include allegiance, standards of conduct, political neutrality, legal obligations, human rights, and the laws of armed conflict. Section 8.4 is particularly relevant because it states that all AFL members are subject to the UCMJ whether on duty or off duty. It also provides that members are entitled to the same legal protection and safeguards as other citizens of Liberia.
This provision establishes two complementary principles. First, military service does not automatically remove a member from the military justice system outside working hours. Conduct occurring away from a military installation may still have military disciplinary implications where the applicable legal requirements are met.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice: The Uniform Code of Military Justice is the military justice framework referenced in the National Defense Act. It establishes standards under which military personnel may be held accountable for specified service-related offenses and other conduct within its lawful scope.
For purposes of this article, the important point is that the UCMJ should not be treated as an informal list of disciplinary preferences. A military charge must be grounded in an applicable legal provision, and the evidence must support the elements of the alleged offense. An incident described as disorderly conduct might also involve another military offense, depending on the facts.
For example, a threat against another person, disobedience of a lawful order, or conduct prejudicial to good order may raise different legal questions from a simple public disturbance. The correct provision must be identified from the operative Liberian military law. It would be inaccurate to assume that the same article applies to every disturbance or to import a provision from another country’s military justice system without confirming its applicability in Liberia.
Threatening behavior: Threatening behavior may constitute disorderly conduct under circumstances covered by Section 17.3 of the Penal Law.
It may also implicate other criminal or military provisions depending on the nature of the threat, the target, the context, and the applicable law. For military personnel, threatening conduct can create additional concerns when it is directed at fellow service members, superiors, civilians, or individuals participating in lawful public activities.
The use of social media does not necessarily place conduct outside the reach of military discipline. The Ministry of National Defense has publicly reported a case involving an AFL corporal whose threatening Facebook statement concerning planned protests was investigated.
The official report stated that the investigation found violations associated with UCMJ Article 92 and General Article 134, after which the matter was referred to the AFL Disciplinary Board.
Due Process and the Rights of Military Personnel
Presumption against premature judgment: A person accused of disorderly conduct should not be treated as guilty merely because a complaint has been filed. The applicable legal process must determine responsibility. This principle protects the accused from arbitrary punishment and helps preserve the credibility of the military justice system.
It is also important in public communication. Official statements should distinguish between allegations, investigative findings, disciplinary determinations, and final legal outcomes.
Opportunity to respond: Fair procedures should provide the accused with an appropriate opportunity to understand and respond to the allegation under the governing rules.
This does not mean that every investigative step must be delayed until the accused has responded. It means that the process should comply with the applicable requirements and that the accused should not be denied the protections to which the law entitles them.
Impartial decision-making
The authority deciding the matter should evaluate the evidence rather than relying entirely on the rank of the complainant or accused.
A junior soldier’s allegation against a senior officer should not be dismissed simply because of rank. Equally, a senior officer’s accusation against a junior soldier should not be accepted without examination.
Military discipline is strongest when the rules apply consistently.
Protection against arbitrary punishment: Discipline must be administered under legal authority. A commander should not invent a punishment or impose a sanction that is not permitted by applicable law or regulation.
The severity of the response should be assessed under the governing rules and relevant circumstances, including the seriousness of the conduct, harm caused, prior disciplinary history where legally relevant, and any aggravating or mitigating considerations recognized by law.
Appeal and review: Where the law provides a right to appeal or administrative review, the applicable process should be explained to the affected person.
Article 20(b) of the Liberian Constitution recognizes the importance of appeal rights in relation to judgments and decisions of courts and administrative bodies, subject to the constitutional framework. The precise review mechanism available in a particular military matter depends on the applicable military law and procedure.
Access to appropriate review helps reduce the risk of mistaken decisions and reinforces confidence in military justice.
Conclusion
Disorderly conduct involving military personnel is an important issue at the intersection of military discipline, public order, criminal justice, and constitutional governance.
In Liberia, the legal framework begins with the National Defense Act of 2008 and the applicable provisions of the UCMJ. Section 8.4 provides that members of the AFL are subject to the UCMJ whether on duty or off duty and are entitled to legal protections and safeguards.
Section 8.5 requires respect for human rights and prohibits torture, mistreatment, abuse, and degrading behavior. The Penal Law, particularly Section 17.3, provides a separate legal framework for civilian disorderly conduct where the statutory elements are established.
The AFL Military Police Unit plays an important role in investigating allegations involving military personnel. The chain of command and competent military disciplinary authorities are responsible for addressing military matters through authorized procedures. Where the facts raise a civilian criminal offense, the Liberia National Police and the Ministry of Justice may also have roles in investigating and prosecuting the matter.
The precise institutional route depends on the facts, the offense, the applicable law, and any relevant referral arrangements. No single procedure should be assumed to apply automatically to every allegation.
This article has emphasized that the proper handling of disorderly conduct requires accurate legal classification, impartial investigation, preservation of evidence, respect for due process, appropriate coordination between institutions, and lawful, proportionate sanctions where misconduct is established.
Ultimately, military discipline should be understood as a foundation of professional service, not merely as a mechanism for punishment. The armed forces must be capable of enforcing their rules while respecting the Constitution, protecting civilians, and safeguarding the rights of military personnel.
For Liberia, strengthening these principles will support the continued development of a professional Armed Forces of Liberia committed to discipline, accountability, human dignity, and the rule of law.
About the Author
Apostle Dr. Tarpeh Lasanah U-sayee Jr. is a Liberian law-enforcement professional, criminal justice scholar, university professor, security and executive-protection trainer, researcher, minister of the Gospel, and international relations practitioner.
His professional career brings together law enforcement, criminal justice education, security administration, leadership, theology, and public service. Publicly available profiles also identify him as a trainer with Liberia’s law-enforcement institutions and a Criminal Justice professor.
Academic Background
Dr. U-sayee has a multidisciplinary academic background, including:
Doctoral Degree in Church Growth and Ministry — T-Net International/Teleo University, USA, conferred January 17, 2026.
Master of Divinity (MDiv).
Master of Foreign Service Leadership in International Relations.
Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice.
Bachelor’s Degree in Sociology.
Associate Degree in Management.
His educational background combines criminal justice, sociology, international relations, management, theology, and church growth, giving him an interdisciplinary foundation for his work in education, security, governance, and ministry.
Law Enforcement and Security Career
Dr. U-sayee has received professional law-enforcement and security training from:
Liberia Police Academy
Louisiana State Police Academy, United States
Lagos State Police Academy, Nigeria
He has served in Liberia’s security sector and has been identified publicly as an Executive Protection Service (EPS) Training Commandant/trainer and a trainer at the Liberia National Police Training Academy. His areas of professional interest include criminal investigation, criminal procedure, police administration, executive protection, security management, intelligence, public safety, and law-enforcement professional development.
Ministry of Justice, Republic of Liberia. (n.d.). Mandate. Ministry of Justice mandate.
Ministry of Justice, Republic of Liberia. (n.d.). Codification. Legal codification and statutory research.
Ministry of National Defense, Republic of Liberia. (n.d.). Defense Authority clarifies incidence in Wainsue Town—launches investigation. Official military investigation report.
Ministry of National Defense, Republic of Liberia. (n.d.). Armed Forces of Liberia discharges three active-duty personnel. Official report on military disciplinary action.
Transparency International Defence & Security. (n.d.). Liberia: Government Defence Integrity Index of defence governance in Liberia.
