More than hundred persons have now complied; about hundred and nine. But the ministers are not responding well. Out of more than 20 ministers I think only nine or ten, ten have complied.
It has been established that investigators at the Liberia Anti Corruption Commission (LACC) had earlier recommended the prosecution of troubled Gender Minister Varbah Gayflor, but the Commissioners in their discretion concluded the findings were not prosecutable.
LACC boss Frances Johnson-Morris told the New Dawn in an exclusive interview recently that she did not endorse the investigators recommendation because she felt the facts and circumstances did not warrant prosecution.
For her, the recommendation is just what it is, saying as an experienced judge and a former lawyer, she has to evaluate the findings and see whether the findings are prosecutable or not in criminal prosecutions.
“There must be criminal intent,” she said, “So we did not endorse that recommendation for prosecution. We, instead, issued our conclusion and said, in this case, this practice is not a good one, the intent may be good, but it is subject to exploitation and abuse. So is this criminal? My answer is no.”
The LACC boss said she told the complainant that the LACC investigate is not just for investigation purposes but to take action as a means of deterrence for future act of impropriety.
“In this case, we have issued our findings and told the ministry not to continue this practice. It is not good. We have issued several letters to all the ministries and agencies of the government and ask them not to do this thing because it causes problem,” Johnson Morris added.
SEE FULL INTERVIEW…
Interview: LACC Boss Frances Johnson-Morris Defends Commission’s Findings on Gender and Development Minister Varbah Gayflor and more.
Editor Note: Weeks following the release of the country’s anti-graft commission’s findings on various allegations of corruption brought before it in 2009, the case involving Gender and Development Minister Varbah Gayflor has been greeted with much controversies, with media report suggesting that the commission indicted the minister, an allegation the head of the commission categorically rejected.
New Dawn: Can you give us an update on the declaration of assets?
FJM: More than hundred persons have now complied; about hundred and nine. But the ministers are not responding well. Out of more than 20 ministers I think only nine or ten, ten have complied.
ND: Among the respondents you have problem with members of the legislature and judiciary.
FJM: Exactly. The legislature and the judiciary are not responding at all. Only one member of the legislature has so far complied and that’s Alomiza Innos.
ND: What will be the commission next step in ensuring that these people comply with the mandate?
FJM: That’s the recurrent question that keeps coming. Everyone who interviews me asks me so what will you do next? And the answer has to be the same always; the LACC does not have an enforcement power per say, against officials of government. This is an administrative measure, an anti-corruption measure, just to assist the process of institutionalizing transparency and accountability in government and promoting good governance.
And we will think that our officials would buy in to that campaign to help the government to purge its image in damning corruption that exists in our society especially when this government has declared corruption as public enemy. We thought people would have been enthusiastic about this very important step to improve our image here locally and abroad and also you know to, sensitize officials, you know who are serving them.., you know the public trust, that it is not ok to come and get rich over night or to acquire a wealth that you cannot reasonably explain you know, and to serve as a check on people you know, appetite for materials and the rest of it. But unfortunately some people are resisting this effort.
ND: How cooperative has the executive branch of government been?
FJM: We can say that the executive has shown some.., we can say they have demonstrated willingness to cooperate with the LACC in this light. The fact that the head of the executive, the president, has declared her assets, the vice president also has declared his assets, and some ministers. The deputies and assistant ministers are more willing. They have cooperated even more than the ministers.
ND: If the heads of the executive branch of government can cooperate why can’t they prevail on their subordinates to follow suit?
FJM: The president has communicated with me asking what the level of compliance was by the members of the executive branch, I sent her an update, and she indicated that she will insure that members of the executive branch, ministers and other officials are going to comply.
ND: Some case investigators go with a preconceived mind when they are going to investigate. They say we are only going to establish the facts because for them the accused is already guilty. Is that the same style that your investigators here are adapting, only going to confirmed what they have already concluded?
FJM: I hope not. I hope that is not the approach that they’re adapting in their investigations. Because I clearly stated that we are not here to witch-hunt people. We are here to do a piece of job, while we are doing our investigations and try to uncover corrupt practices we need to respect the right of people, we need to employ our fundamental principle of innocence before guilt, we need to give people due process of law, that is the kind of orientation we are trying to provide to our people. They are quite enthusiastic and they are dedicated, notwithstanding the limited training and logistics or other things; they are trying to do a good job.
ND: The president recent Executive Order #22 on whistle blowers, how has it helped the commission in these few days?
FJM: The executive order was just issued a couple of days ago and I understand that people are taking advantage of this whistle blower protection. The chief of investigation told me that since the issuance of the executive order more calls have been coming. But it is not enough to say that I know there is corruption here or there, you need to come forward with facts.
ND: Is the case at the Gender Ministry part of the whistle blowing?
FJM: This Gender Ministry case is not whistle blower per say. It is someone who was affected by a system. She had been dismissed already when she came here. Maybe that was her way of getting back at the minister.
ND: Was there anything more than sharing allowances in this case at the Gender Ministry?
FJM: The information I got, the complaint we received, and the findings of the investigators, established that the system, a practice was there for employees to share their general allowances with other people who are not entitled to it. So that the practice that I know our investigators investigated here. Anything beyond that, I am not aware. The complaint was that she has been dismissed and while she was in the employ of the Gender Ministry she was earning general allowance in the mount of 200 USD gross, 180 USD net, of that amount, after the authorities have pooled the checks of all those who was receiving general allowance, they cashed them, and what came back to her was 50 dollars every month. The interesting part is that this complaint never came out until she was fired. The investigators investigated that, and the investigators came out with yes this is true, this is what was happening, they began to calculate the amount on the basis of legitimate earning, and they came out with some figures that this is what has been deducted. It was about USD3000 (three thousand United States Dollars) in all that she was entitled to.
The investigators recommended prosecution for theft, for exploitation, for abuse of power. But as you know, the recommendation is just what it is. As a judge, a former lawyer, I have to evaluate the findings and see whether the findings are prosecutable or not in criminal prosecutions. There must be criminal intent. So we did not endorse that recommendation for prosecution. We instead issued our conclusion and said, in this case, this practice is not a good one, the intent may be good, but it is subject to exploitation and abuse. So is this criminal?
My answer is no. We did not endorse the recommendation for prosecution of the minister of Gender because we felt the facts and circumstances did not warrant prosecution. The complainant coincidentally came and sat here in that chair and she wanted to know what has become of her case. I told her that you know we investigate not just for investigation purposes. We investigate and take action as a mean of deterrence for future act of impropriety. In this case, we have issued our findings and told the ministry not to continue this practice. It is not good. We have issued several letters to all the ministries and agencies of the government to ask them not to do this thing because it causes problem.
When I was at the ministry of commerce, some employees came one day and said we don’t know why we don’t get general allowances. So this general allowances has been problematic apparently, and so I called Dr. Allen at that time. I asked him who are entitled to this general allowances because I am getting some complaints here? Some people are grumbling. He said you know, general allowances, people from director on up are entitled to it. He said general allowance is just the US component of your benefits to beef the Liberian Dollar thing. He said for instance, I, Dr. Allen, I have a driver and a generator man. As long as I am in the office these people have to be here. They don’t stay here from 8 to 4. They stay here until I leave. So I use my description and say, these people deserve something extra. So he said to me, you can apply that.
ND: Investigators wanted prosecution, the commissioners said no. Don’t you think this is what triggered the big noise out there? Making it to look like, the commissioners, want to shield government officials and those who are down there want to make sure they are exposed?
FJM: People need to get the background as you are doing now so they can understand it. They don’t have the experience and training as I have. If I go to court I must be able to make a case. They also recommended restitution. That will mean that the minister will have to go back to all those who were not entitled and who have received and say, give me the money I gave you. There was no showing that she pocketed the money and did not give it.
