06/10/2026
Journalists Decry ‘Renegade’ Label, Access Restrictions at RIA
By: George C. Flomo
Margibi County, October 6, 2026 - A dispute over media access at the Roberts International Airport (RIA) has triggered concerns among journalists after professionals assigned to cover the Ministry of Information’s activities were reportedly restricted from covering President Joseph Nyuma Boakai’s arrival from the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly.
The controversy took a more serious turn when Ambassador Emmet Kennedy, Chief of Protocol at the Executive Mansion, reportedly referred to some of the journalists at the airport as “renegade journalists,” a characterization that immediately drew disappointment and concern from members of the media fraternity.
The journalists involved were not individuals who independently traveled to the Roberts International Airport seeking access to the President.
Rather, they were media professionals who regularly cover activities of the Ministry of Information, and a selected number of them had been designated to cover the President’s arrival as part of the Ministry’s established media coverage arrangement.
The selected journalists were reportedly transported from Monrovia to the airport in a special bus owned by the Ministry of Information, with the intention of ensuring that various media institutions would have representation at the President’s arrival and that the Liberian public would receive coverage of the event.
Such an arrangement has become part of the Ministry of Information’s efforts to facilitate media coverage of major government activities, particularly presidential movements and other high-level national events.
It was against this background that journalists at the airport expressed concern over the treatment they encountered from elements of the Executive Protection Service (EPS) and presidential protocol officials.
Upon their arrival at RIA, journalists assigned to cover the President’s return reportedly encountered resistance when attempting to access areas from which they could properly perform their professional duties.
According to journalists present, the restrictions were not limited to one individual or one media institution, but affected several professionals who had traveled as part of the organized media coverage.
The situation became particularly uncomfortable when Ambassador Kennedy was reported to have referred to the journalists as “renegade journalists.”
For journalists who were present, the description was difficult to reconcile with the circumstances under which they had arrived at the airport.
They had not simply appeared at RIA on their own initiative. They were part of a group of media professionals selected to cover an official presidential event and transported there through the Ministry of Information’s media arrangement.
The dispute therefore raised questions among journalists about how professionals assigned to an official media coverage exercise could subsequently be characterized as “renegades” while carrying out that assignment.
What Does ‘Renegade’ Mean?
The word “renegade” carries a particular meaning that explains why its reported use generated such strong reaction among journalists.
A renegade is generally understood as a person who abandons, rejects or deserts a group, organization, cause or established authority, or someone who acts in defiance of the group or system to which they are expected to belong.
In ordinary usage, therefore, describing someone as a “renegade” can suggest that the individual is rebellious, disloyal, nonconforming or operating outside an accepted structure.
Consequently, when the expression “renegade journalists” is applied to professional media practitioners, it can reasonably be understood as suggesting that those journalists are acting outside recognized professional or institutional arrangements.
That implication is what made the description particularly sensitive for journalists who said they were at RIA as part of an organized assignment to cover the President.
For the journalists involved, it was about the professional reputation attached to the word and what such a characterization could communicate about them and their work.
Journalists maintain that disagreements over access, accreditation or security arrangements should not automatically translate into descriptions that could be interpreted as questioning their professionalism, loyalty or legitimacy as members of the press.
The situation became even more concerning to journalists because the Acting President of the Reporters Association of Liberia (RAL) Kruah Thomson was reportedly among those who encountered restrictions while attempting to perform media-related duties at the airport.
The presence of the acting head of a professional journalists’ association among those experiencing access difficulties heightened the concerns expressed by members of the media fraternity.
RAL represents journalists and engages on issues affecting the professional practice and working conditions of media practitioners.
Journalists at RIA consequently questioned how members of the country's professional media community could be subjected to restrictions while covering an official event, particularly when the media presence had been facilitated through the Ministry of Information.
The President of the Ministry of Information Reporters Network (MIRNET) Emmanuel D. Mopolu also reportedly among the media professionals affected by the access restrictions.
The development has therefore raised broader questions about coordination between the Ministry of Information, the Executive Mansion protocol structure and the EPS when journalists are deployed to cover presidential activities.
The role of the EPS in protecting the President and maintaining security around presidential movements is not being questioned by journalists.
Presidential security naturally requires controlled movement, restricted areas and clear security procedures.
The concern being raised by members of the media, however, is that security requirements should be coordinated with established media arrangements so that journalists who have been officially selected and transported to cover an event are not unnecessarily prevented from carrying out their assignments.
Journalists do not expect access to restricted security areas or the ability to interfere with presidential protection arrangements.
What they expect, they say, is a clearly defined and professionally managed area from which they can report on the President’s arrival without being subjected to unnecessary confrontation or language that could undermine their professional standing.
Media access and presidential security do not necessarily have to be competing interests. With proper coordination, journalists can remain within designated areas while security personnel maintain the necessary protective measures.
The circumstances surrounding Tuesday's incident make the access dispute particularly significant.
The journalists were already part of the media structure covering the Ministry of Information. Their assignment to RIA was not an informal attempt by individual reporters to gain proximity to the President.
The Ministry had selected journalists from different media institutions to cover the President’s arrival and had facilitated their transportation to the airport. The purpose was to ensure that the event received broad media coverage for the Liberian public.
That arrangement, journalists say, makes the reported characterization of some of those same professionals as “renegade journalists” especially troubling.
If there were concerns about particular journalists, their accreditation, conduct or eligibility to enter a particular area, journalists argue that such concerns could have been communicated directly and professionally rather than through a broad characterization of members of the press.
The RIA incident has consequently raised questions that extend beyond the President’s arrival.
It has brought renewed attention to the relationship between government institutions responsible for presidential protocol and security and the journalists assigned to cover government activities.
For journalists, the issue is not simply about getting physically close to the President. It is about whether professionals assigned to report on an official government event can carry out their duties with dignity and without being subjected to unnecessary obstruction or descriptions that may be interpreted as attacks on their professional identity.
The incident also raises questions about whether there is sufficient coordination among the Ministry of Information, the Executive Mansion protocol team and the EPS regarding media coverage of presidential movements.
A clear and consistently applied media-access protocol could help prevent similar confrontations in the future.
Such a framework could identify the journalists authorized to cover a particular presidential event, establish designated media positions, clarify the role of protocol and security personnel, and ensure that journalists understand the limits of their access before arriving at the venue.
The journalists affected by the incident are calling for greater professionalism and mutual respect in future engagements between government officials, security personnel and members of the press.
They acknowledge the security responsibilities surrounding the President but maintain that journalists also have professional responsibilities to their respective media institutions and, ultimately, to the public.
For the journalists who traveled to RIA under the Ministry of Information’s media arrangement, Tuesday’s experience was therefore viewed as more than an ordinary disagreement over access.
It was the combination of being selected for an official media assignment, being transported to the airport to perform that assignment, subsequently encountering resistance, and then reportedly being described as “renegade journalists” that generated the strongest reaction.
The presence of the Acting President of RAL and the President of MIRNET among those reportedly affected further amplified the concerns within the media community.
The incident now places renewed emphasis on the need for government institutions and media organizations to establish clearer lines of communication before major presidential movements.
While the protection of the President remains a legitimate security responsibility, journalists argue that such responsibility should coexist with respect for the professional role of the press.
As Liberia continues to strengthen its democratic institutions and media environment, the events at Roberts International Airport serve as a reminder of the importance of maintaining a working relationship between government authorities and the journalists assigned to inform the public.
For the journalists involved, the central question is no longer simply who was allowed through the gate.
It is whether professionals sent to cover an official presidential event should be treated as legitimate members of the press, given reasonable access to perform their assignments, and addressed with the professional respect expected in a democratic society.
Tag
Kids in Media Liberia Inc.
Ministry of Justice - Liberia
Discussing Liberia George Weah George Weah President 2029 Unity Party Executive Mansion-Liberia Kids TV Liberia
