MONROVIA, Liberia — Liberian lawyer Moriah Yeakula has publicly challenged the interpretation of Liberia’s Domestic Relations Law cited by Gender Ministry official Gbeme Horace Kollie, arguing that the law does not require women to support unemployed husbands simply because they are earning an income.
Yeakula, a lawyer specializing in Family Law, said she was compelled to respond after receiving numerous messages concerning Kollie’s recent comments urging unemployed or non-income-earning married men to report wives who fail to financially support them and their children.
According to Yeakula, the specific provision cited by Kollie—Chapter 5, Section 5.3(e) of the Domestic Relations Law—does not establish a general obligation for women to support unemployed husbands.
She explained that the provision states that a wife is liable for the support of her husband when he is “incapable of supporting himself” and is, or is likely to become, a public charge.
Yeakula argued that the provision applies to circumstances involving serious incapacity rather than ordinary unemployment.
“Unemployment is not incapacitation/incapability,” she said, arguing that a man who is physically and mentally capable of working but is unemployed does not automatically meet the legal requirements outlined in the provision.
She cited circumstances such as severe illness, being bedridden, suffering a stroke, sustaining a serious accident or experiencing certain forms of mental illness as examples that could potentially constitute incapacity.
Law Places Primary Support Obligation on Husband
Yeakula further pointed to other provisions of the Domestic Relations Law, arguing that the law establishes the husband’s responsibility to support his wife while creating limited circumstances under which a woman may be required to provide support.
She referenced Section 5.3(a), which states that a husband is liable for the support of his wife.
She also cited Section 5.3(c) concerning support for children, arguing that the provision identifies specific circumstances under which a woman may be required to provide support, including situations where the father cannot be found, is deceased or is incapable of supporting the child.
According to Yeakula, these provisions do not establish a blanket requirement for women to financially support their husbands and children whenever the husband is unemployed.
Supreme Court Decisions Cited
The lawyer also relied on several Supreme Court decisions to support her interpretation, including Dean v. Dean (1939), Vincent-Harding v. Harding (1983), Garnett v. Garnetts (2007), Brown v. Kollie (2014), and Kogar v. Kogar (2023).
She said the decisions demonstrate a longstanding position that a husband’s legal obligation to support his wife is not automatically removed by financial hardship or unemployment when he remains capable of earning an income.
Yeakula specifically referenced Brown v. Kollie (2014), in which she said the Supreme Court recognized a wife’s right to support even where the husband’s exact financial capacity could not be readily established.
She also cited the principle that a person responsible for support may still be required to provide a reasonable amount according to their means when they are capable of earning those means.
Based on that interpretation, Yeakula argued that an unemployed man who remains capable of working cannot automatically be classified as legally incapable of supporting himself or his family.
Calls for Legal Clarification
Yeakula urged the Gender Minister and the Ministry’s legal advisers to provide Supreme Court opinions supporting the interpretation that women are legally required to support unemployed husbands and their children solely because the women are earning an income.
She called on the Ministry to reconsider the advice being communicated to the public if such judicial authority cannot be produced.
“I’ll strongly suggest you ask them to give you Supreme Court opinions to back the interpretation that ‘a woman is responsible to support the man and children when the man is unemployed,’” Yeakula said.
She further warned that what she described as subjective interpretations of clear statutory provisions by government institutions could have consequences for women and children.
Yeakula’s comments come as public discussion continues over the respective financial responsibilities of husbands and wives under Liberia’s family laws.
The dispute centers on whether unemployment alone is sufficient to trigger the legal provision requiring a wife to support her husband, or whether the law requires the more specific circumstances of incapacity and actual or potential dependence on government assistance.
