Special Feature

Vice President Joseph Boakai is set to win 2017 Presidential Election

If the current security, economic and political progress prove true, the Unity Party ( UP) presidential nominee will be named the victor once ballots are counted in October this year. Over the past 10 years, Liberia has made significant progress in security sector reform, and economic and political development - factors that are enormously crucial in this year election. To assess Joseph Boakai's chance of victory, we look at the progress made by the Sirleaf-Boakai led government. We will also analyse voter ideology in national elections by using County endorsement and vice presidential candidate selection.

National security is a precondition for economic and political development, which makes it an essential factor that concerns every Liberian despite their political affiliation. Because a robust security system is a necessary and sufficient condition for peace and stability - Does this sound like a valid argument? Yes, it is...

Since the end of the civil war in 2003 and the return to democracy in 2005, Liberia has been gradually rebuilding and returning to normalcy. Under the Sirleaf-Boakai leadership security sector reform was a top priority. Because they wanted to ensure that our children go to school safely. With the help of the International Community, our security sector underwent a massive reform which opened up the political space and ultimately boosted investors confidence, for example, in the mining sector.

It is reasonable to note that the Unity Party ( UP) government has been made considerable progress in providing security for all. According to the Peace Institute, Liberia's post-conflict recovery process appears to be a success story for other nations. If you dig deeper, you will agree with my argument that the UP led government has made significant progress, because a body of international institutions has acknowledged this. For example, a report by the World Bank maintained that the current government has revived national hope by strengthening the institutions of national security and good governance which has revitalized its economy and infrastructure and restored its reputation (World Bank, 2014). An achievement that has unequivocally made Liberia a safer place for all. It also means that our democracy is booming, because a safe environment paves the way for a genuine democracy. This is an amazing achievement that every Liberian should celebrate. The perfect way to celebrate this is to VOTE for Joseph Boakai - play your role by sustaining our hard earned democracy. That is why voting for a responsible team to lead our nation has never been so crucial.

In 1996 when I visited Liberia there was fear and deprivation everywhere. In 2010, when I went back everything has changed. I saw happiness and progress. I was excited because Liberia was getting better as my best friend, the late Mamadee Diakite argued. But all of these require genuine commitments, hard work, and strong leadership - from our leaders. One of the quiet and behind-the-scene drivers in making all of these a reality is Vice President Joseph Boakai. And then, I got interested in him. Over the years, I have been following his role in the UP led government. And I got to know that he is a man with discipline, resilience who thinks thoughtfully about important policy issues and pushes for pragmatic solutions. These are the qualities we want to see in our next president. Boakai is the most experienced candidate to be trusted when it comes to sustaining and improving national security. Because he understands the challenges faced by the security sector. For instance, he knows that true national security is more than personal human safety but rather it also involves making sure that our national economy is growing and providing jobs. Furthermore, he understands the real impact of the Ebola outbreak that destroyed our health system and pushed thousands of Liberians back into poverty. Failure to elect a responsible government, like the Boakai- Nuquay team will make the recovery process even messier.

Eradicating poverty will not be possible without a sustainable economic growth that generates jobs and brings benefits to every Liberian. Generally, this includes boosting productivity within existing sectors as well as rebalancing national economy towards more productive sectors. For example, moving from agriculture to manufacturing. Such structural change in the national economy has lifted millions out of poverty. This, I would argue was a top priority of the Sirleaf-Boakai led government. Currently, no one understands this urgent needs better than Joseph Boakai. I have seen in him a fierce determination - a strong commitment to national security, food security and economic transformation (from agriculture to manufacturing). I have seen in him the possibility of what Liberia could be if there were capable leaders.

Before the Ebola outbreak, Liberia was making a significant progress in many sectors. In 2013 Liberia was ranked sixth among the top 10 countries with the highest GDP growth in the world ( Brookings Institute, 2014). Investors confidence was building up. Local businesses were growing. In many areas, major road projects were in progress. But all that being said, I know, as a Development Practitioner progress comes very slow, and not without its setbacks, for example, the Ebola outbreak. In 2014, Liberia was hit hard by the Ebola outbreak and the spiky decline in major commodities prices such as Iron Ore and Rubber. This was not only a setback for the UP led government but also the entire Mano River Region with the exception of Ivory Coast.

Many years of progress was wiped away in a few months. Every good politician or development practitioner understands that there will always be challenges in nation building. The good news is that: Joseph Boakai better understands these challenges. That is why he is the most prepared, qualified and experienced candidate in this election to face these challenges. I am certain that Liberians will overwhelmingly elect Honourable Joseph Boakai to continue the hard work. So, we presume that Joseph Boakai and his Vice Presidential candidate Emmanuel Nuquay are set to win 2017 election.

The selection of a vice presidential candidate has always prompted heated discussion,
for instance, how much does the VP pick really matter in an election? It has been noted that presidential candidates often consider geography when choosing a running mate - a pattern most political leaders follow. In order to answer the question above, I will use the effect of a County endorsing a presidential candidate based on the VP pick. A perfect example will be Bong County in 2005 presidential election, which I will term as the "Bong Effect". The "Bong Effect" is a political model developed by Dr. Winston Tubman. It was based on the calculation that if you pick a running mate based on geography ( from a vote-rich county) it is more likely to influence the general election outcome in one's favour. Interestingly, in 2005, Winston won over 40% of the vote in Bong County. One possible reason for this is the impact of a VP selection based on geography. Now it is easy to see why this model has become popular in modern elections in Liberia. For example, this year, both Cumming of the ANC and George Weah of CDC have selected their running mates from Bong County. The hard fact is that neither of them will win Bong as Winston did in 2005 because Bong has become a battleground. That being said, we strongly presume that Boakai and Nuquay are positioned to edge out a victory in Bong County. For starters, Bong and Lofa are good neighbours and so are Bong and Margibi. This means that most residents in Bong County are more likely to vote for the Unity Party - Good Neighbour Effect.

And then George Weah selection of Jewel Taylor as his running mate will do him more harm in many parts of Liberia, including Bong County. For example, CDC is set to lose a large percentage of the Muslim votes in Bong and many parts of Liberia. Because religious and ethnic diversity plays an important role in many contemporary democracies across the globe. In this case, we argue that Jewel Taylor role in supporting a failed bill that threatens secularism will do CDC more harm in this election. After many years of civil war, we need a multicultural society that embraces diversity - diversity should be our source of strength, not weakness.

Building further on County endorsement and VP selection. Boakai has played a smart game by selecting his running mate from Margibi. Margibi constitutes about 5% of Liberia's population. This means that the County has become a vote-rich zone and one of the key players in deciding this year election because of its population size. Again, we presume that Boakai and Nuquay will win Margibi which will also influence the general outcome.

The Liberty Party ( LP) which is struggling to sell its political ideology to the Liberians has made a similar mistake. Charles Brumskine's selection of a vice presidential candidate from Nimba will do him little favour. This is because there are two big names from the County in this year election which has ultimately reduced the voting weight it carries in deciding who governs Liberia. In other words, the presence of Karnwea and Johnson on the ballots means that Nimba is no longer a vote-rich country for a particular candidate in this election. It also means that the Liberty Party strategy to increase its national voting share will not be effective.

Remember the Bong-Bassa marriage was a political disaster for LP in one of the past elections. So will the Bong -Nimba marriage be a political earthquake for LP, again?

Even more disturbing for LP is that the party has failed to identify the reasons why it has been struggling to come second place in the past two elections despite the so-called popularity Brumskine has enjoyed in some segments of the Liberian community - based on his divisive religious message in his campaigns. For example, Liberty Party slipped from third place in 2005 to fourth place 2011. This means nothing has changed in term of strategic planning. Except for the coming of a few rich businessmen with deep pockets to finance his campaign. Considering these and others factors, Joseph Boakai is set to win 2017 election.

Presidential candidate credibility is an integral part of any modern election. If this is true, then it raises an important question: Do Liberians really trust Weah or Brumskine to lead? The answer is NO. The fact is that Liberians trust neither Weah nor Brumskine in delivering the political goods that will benefit everyone. Trust and credibility are inseparable. Credibility is a valuable quality that all leaders must aspire to obtain. Establishing credibility as a leader isn't something that happens instantaneously. It's a process that involves time, hard work and patience. Sadly, both Weah and Brumskine have failed the credibility test. For example, George Weah has been in national politics for over 10 years but has failed to learn and improve his political career. He is currently struggling to keep up with his duties in Parliament. In the case of Brumskine, do you really trust a 'Corporate Lawyer’ to govern? Think about this... Furthermore, the Liberty Party lacks intra-party democracy that is why Brumskine has been the only presidential candidate since 2005? On the other hand, Boakai has built his leadership credibility as one of the finest politicians in modern Liberia. Liberians strongly believe that he will deliver the political goods that will benefit everyone. That is why most political analysts have projected that Joseph Boakai is inching toward a big victory. That being said, Boakai and Nuquay will have to continue the hard work in order to firmly seal their victory.

Join the campaign to sustain our gain and progress with Boakai and Nuquay

Musa V. Sheriff

Email; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Phone: 61401419003
Perth, Western Australia

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article, are not the views of the New Dawn newspaper.


The Crucifixion of Liberianization: Why Give a Whopping 30-Year Tax Break to a Lebanese-owned Hotel?


The Lebanese-owned Farmington Hotel that is set to get 30 years tax break in Liberia. In a bid to be re-elected in 2011, Africa’s first female President signed an official contract with all Liberians through a solemn pledge consisting of twenty promises. As part of those 20 promises, these were Madam Sirleaf’s words to all Liberian voters during the campaign period in 2011:
1. We pledge to ensure that Liberian businesses/companies have increased access to finance.
2. We pledge to ensure double-digit growth to address poverty.
3. We pledge to ensure no fewer than 20,000 jobs every year.

After yet another presidential tenure and with just 6 months to go, are these pledges being fulfilled? The reality on ground is that these pledges are being fulfilled in the interest of foreigners, and not Liberians. These promises are being fulfilled to protect foreign companies and investors, and not Liberian-owned companies and entrepreneurs. It is only in Liberia that foreign companies are given exclusive leverage while credible local companies are made vulnerably inactive. It is only in Liberia that a foreign hotel will be given a whopping 30-year tax holiday while high taxes are harshly imposed on a group of struggling Liberian-owned hotels. Isn’t this unimaginable, mind-blowing and unpatriotic?

It is only in Liberia that our government will serve as a guarantor for a bogus Chinese-owned company (East International Group) in a shady US$59.5 million Pre-Financing Loan Agreement. Can the government of China do this for a Liberian-owned company? Liberian businesses and companies can never have access to increased finance when they are being unpatriotically sidelined by those in authority. The reduction of poverty and creation of 20,000 jobs every year can only be a dream come through when local enterprises and Liberian-owned companies are prioritized in the recovery, rebuilding and reconstruction process of our nation.

I thought President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf made a commitment to Liberian-owned businesses in paragraph 1 and 2 under Economic Renewal in her January 16, 2006 inaugural address when she said “The task of reconstructing our devastated economy is awesome…..Yet, we have the potential to promote a healthy economy in which Liberians can prosper. We can create an investment climate that gives confidence to Liberians.”

After almost 12 years since this promise was made, genuine steps are yet to be taken by her government to protect local businesses and entrepreneurs. Protecting foreign businesses for ravenous and temporary gains has been the primary interest of this government. We can never take control of our economy until our government reverses its bad economic model and begins to put Liberian businesses first. Over 81.86% of our people are living in destitution and Liberia is the 4th poorest country worldwide simply because of such perverse decision or bad deal orchestrated by our government.

Patriotism has become a taboo under Africa's first female President while nationalism is a felonious crime. Accountability is now prohibited while greed remains a major public policy. Corruption, nepotism, inequality and economic sabotage are key drivers or pillars of our nation’s development agenda. The rush to amass illicit wealth by those in authority through covert agreements is sky-scraping and sickening. The interest of the nation no longer matters to stewards of our resources. What is wrong with our leaders in Liberia? Are they really leaders or looters?
In January and April of this year, a group of Liberian entrepreneurs under the banner Patriotic Entrepreneurs of Liberia (PATEL) staged a protest calling on government to reduce taxes on local businesses and major imports. For the very first time in our country since 1847, our local currency is fast depreciating. The exchange rate is now L$120 – US$1. Who does this affect? The poor or the rich? The bourgeoisies or the proletarians? Public service nowadays in Liberia is an attractive gold mine for sophisticated zombies, puppeteers and charlatans. This trend has to change if Liberia and Liberians must rise above misery.

Up-to-date, our government has given deaf ears to these patriotic Liberian entrepreneurs. Prices remain soaring on our markets mainly as a result of this high imposition of taxes on Liberian-owned businesses while flexibility or leverage is given to foreign businesses by our government. Why give a 30-year tax holiday or tax break to a Lebanese-owned hotel when no Liberian-owned hotel has ever received a tax holiday for even 6 months? Isn’t this a crucifixion of our 1975 Liberianization Policy?

The government is seeking to give a whopping 30-year tax holiday or tax exemption to Farmington Hotel, a foreign business owned by Lebanese businessman George E. Abi Jaoudi. While Corina Hotel, a local hotel owned by Liberian businessman Sam Mitchell, is struggling to improve its facility on 24th Street and at the same time pay huge taxes, our government is endeavoring to exempt a foreign hotel from paying taxes for 30 years. This is never done in Ghana, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Guinea or even Sierra Leone.

For instance, Ghana revised its investment laws to ensure more protection for Ghanaian entrepreneurs and businesses in 2013. What is wrong with Liberia? Isn’t this a crucifixion of the 1975 Liberianization Policy? While Belle Casa, a Liberian-owned hotel operated by a local businessman Amin Modad, is struggling to compete with foreign hotels and at the same time pay huge taxes, our government is prioritizing Farmington Hotel. Why couldn’t our government give tax holiday to Jackies Hotel in Nimba County or Buchanan Hotel in Grand Bassa? Where does Liberia’s interest lie? Isn’t this a crucifixion of patriotism and nationalism? Will Farmington Hotel provide free services after receiving this 30-year tax break?

The Joint Committee on Investment and Concession & Judiciary and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives are currently reviewing this 30-year tax break. In my opinion, this should not even be reviewed or discussed considering its skeptical, unreasonable, unjustifiable and unpatriotic nature. Whose interest is Farmington’s Hotel? The Legislature must act promptly in our best interest by trashing this unpatriotic agreement. If you cannot do it for Liberian hotels, who else then? If you cannot protect Liberian businesses, who else then? Isn’t it our right to reap the benefits of being called Liberians? Or, is it a curse to be a Liberian?

Reliable information reaching us indicates that this foreign hotel is the interest of Aunty Jenny Bernard, the sister of President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, who many refer to as the ‘de facto’ Prime Minister of Liberia. Why give preferential treatment to a foreign hotel, and not a local hotel? The preference of a foreign business over a local business is in blatant violation of Section 45.1 and Part V Section 46 of our PPCC Law. How long will our leaders be so cruel to their own people?
Today, our government is awarding over US$2 million contract to Mutual Construction Company, a subsidiary of a bogus foreign Company (East International Group Incorporated) to install the sidewall pillars along Tubman Boulevard. Aren’t there qualified, competent and credible Liberian-owned construction companies to do this sidewall? Aren’t there capable Liberian engineers to do sidewall?
It is sad that these very same foreign companies are hiring Liberian engineers/contractors for peanut especially after receiving millions through shady deals. So, are Liberian engineers and companies only good enough to be subcontracted? Are our engineers only good enough to build plank bridges, lay blocks, transport cement and sand, sell crush rocks, bend steel, draw house plan and serve as casual laborers for foreigners and foreign companies?

It is a glaring fact that the predominant interest of "Leaders" in Liberia is to distribute mass poverty, and not to reduce it. They care more about cruelly pocketing millions instead of combating hardship. When they steal these millions through bogus agreements and concessions, they deprive vast majority of our people from having access to quality education, better healthcare, good roads, profitable jobs, electricity, safe drinking water, food security and improved housing.

The number of hardcore pillagers under President Sirleaf far exceeds the number of patriots. The PRS was never meant to reduce poverty, but to replicate it evident by the increasing number of slum communities across our nation. Does this suggest that the legacy of President Sirleaf will be engraved on sand, and not stone? We call on all political parties and political leaders to muster the courage and speak against these ‘rush hour’ contracts and bogus agreements with just 6 months to a new government. Why is this government creating such financial burden for the next government?

We call on civil society organizations and the media to join this campaign of PUTTING LIBERIA FIRST and protecting its sovereignty. The youth, religious and traditional leaders have a choice to stand up now, otherwise they risk losing a lot. Our short and long-term expectations from this government and succeeding governments respectively are:
1. Put Liberia and Liberians’ interest first by upholding the Liberianization policy and PPCC Law.
2. Award contracts below US$10 million exclusively to Liberian-owned companies and predominantly involve Liberian-owned companies/businesses in contracts costing more than US$10 million.
3. Ensure all audit reports and those linked to corruption and economic sabotage are independently investigated and prosecuted.
4. Increase access to financing for Liberian-owned businesses.
5. Create a strong system of governance, transparency and accountability to prevent nepotism (family interest), conflict of interest (kickbacks) and corruption/economic sabotage during concessions and contracts.
With 109 days to 2017 elections, the masses of our people are watching and they will decide the political fate of incumbent lawmakers who will support this thoughtless and wicked 30-year tax break in favor of Farmington Hotel. Surely, the PEOPLE will decide your fate. The PEOPLE are watching and PAY DAY will come soon. The PEOPLE will meet those who continue to compromise their interest and mortgage their resources at the polls. Surely, that day is in sight and nearing when the marginalized voices of our people will rise again. Surely, that time is just 104 more days away when all of our PEOPLE shall march to the polls with optimism to redirect their socio-economic and political destiny. LIBERIA FIRST, LIBERIA LAST – We must all protect his glorious and nationalistic heritage.

About The Guest Speaker: Martin K. N. Kollie is a Liberian youth and student activist, a columnist and an emerging economist who hails from Bong County. He currently studies Economics at the University of Liberia and is a Lux-in-Tenebris Scholar. Martin is the youth ambassador of the International Human Rights Commission and a loyal stalwart of the Vanguard Student Unification Party (SUP). He can be reached at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

By Martin K. N. Kollie

Issues Must Define Liberia’s Historic Transition – Not Ethnic Sentiments

Preparations for the elections of October 2017 in Liberia is increasingly hearing of “time for the country people to assume power.” This has brought forth the resurgence of the country-congau narratives. True, one group of people led Liberia for well over 133 years. But this was not a story of democratic governance. This was not a story of elections, and regrettable, this was a course of disorganization that many still blame today for Liberia’s gross underdevelopment. For most of this period, the majority of people in our country were not even considered citizens, mainly because they were not “civilized.” That is a sad period that cannot be relived in the spirit of democracy, justice, freedom, and I dare say civilization.

The coup d’état of April 12, 1980 that shattered this establishment was a rude awakening that saw a ridiculous story of bloodshed and a transfer of power previously unknown in Liberia. The coup marked a renewal of the Liberian state, led to the development of a democratic constitution that guarantees universal suffrage and citizenship for anyone who was a citizen upon its assumption. On account of this revolution, any Liberian of any persuasion can now stand for president or any other office. This is a victory! Given the years of underdevelopment and disenfranchisement, the people of Liberia have since had the opportunity to organize their state in a better manner and form, utilizing the best of our human resources towards ensuring the rights and welfare of our people.

Unfortunately, the stage upon which universal participation and governance in Liberia was set disintegrated within a few years, and there have since been years of destruction and misery. We have had conflicts, transitions and related processes to make that move towards sustainable democratic governance. After 12 years of relative stability, our efforts to transition to a more formal and organized government must be one that strengthens the peace, ensure greater participation and lead to sustainable development.

This is a tall, but not impossible order, given that there are experiences in Africa and elsewhere that we can rely upon. The best guidance anyone can get in these condition could be from a person who the world rightly sees as a symbol of reconciliation and uprightness. South Africa’s Nelson Mandela spent a quarter century in prison under his country’s exploitative and oppressive apartheid rules, “fought against white domination, and … black domination,” yet still had the courage to “cherish the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities.”

In the face of such highly vaunted guidance in peaceful coexistence, upon which to expand the transition and transformation of Liberia, there is a mayday call for domination, alienation, exclusion, expressed through debates for a so-called “indigenous leader.” The divisiveness of this call brings into question whether there is anything that should limit anyone from being an indigenous in today’s Liberia. The Golas are reputed to have been in these territorial limits for the better of the last 500 years, and the Americo-Liberians have been here for nearly 200 years. Over time, there have been significant interrelations that could have eased this claim of tribal purity. But a lot of people are ignoring this and subtly calling on a “country-people” regime. This is sad, and a story minorities and marginalized groups anywhere should fear.

While Mandingoes have been settled within the current Liberia territories for periods between 200 and more years, many persons from a number of other tribes still attempt to ignore this fact and its historic significance. This made Mandingoes collateral victims of the sad targeted tribal killings that occasioned the Liberian civil war. The tension had regrettably evolved between Gios and Manos on one hand as against the Krahns on the other. But the tribal tides and claims against the Mandingoes ultimately caused a degree of discomfort and tension with the Lormas.

While historically, and geographically, one of the better known and largest language groups across West Africa, and given their location across the savanna, which placed them at a location at the actual north of Liberia, across four counties, Mandingoes are in most cases considered strangers, who have gotten involved with “Liberian affairs.”
This misconception prevails notwithstanding the fact that other tribes like Lorma, Kissi, Kpelle, and Mano have larger numbers in Guinea, while Krahns and Gios have larger number of their tribal folks in Cote d’Ivoire. Despite this reality, members of these groups are seldom considered foreigners in Liberia, yet Mandingoes bear the brunt of discrimination.

Similarly, while at the time of the organization of the Liberian state a majority Muslim ratio among the Vai, Mandingo and Gbandi, and significant Muslims among Kpelle, Kissi and Gola, a lot of people in Liberia still think Islam is a “foreign religion.”

As a consequence of this thought and perception, Mandingoes on one hand, and Muslims on the other, are easily frowned upon and rejected by “some” Liberians. This sad state came to a head when a major constitutional review process considered transforming Liberia into a Christian state. Such efforts to limit opportunities for any one group or another questioned whether we as a people are determined to move Liberia forward as a democracy. Good for all, the national leadership, with appropriate advice from the international community, thought not to allow such a divisive trend to gain national recognition.

This is a sad scenario that should not continue as we drive into the third century of Liberia’s existence, and especially where there is a transition that should benefit all, and drive Liberia to another era. For a fact, you do not end your marginalization by joining others to marginalize others. Those with the mind to marginalize will still define new minorities for marginalization.

Experiences from other countries show that using tribalism in the political process can be dangerous. In a recent article for DeutcheWelle by ZipporahNyambura , Nairobi-based analyst Brian Wanyama blamed tribalism for "ills in [Kenya] like corruption, ethnic clashes and underdevelopment," and recommended that "People must be given jobs based on their skills and training, not tribes."

Nyambura recalled that the flames that engulfed Kenya in the aftermath of the hotly disputed 2008 elections, which left over a thousand people dead and thousands displaced, was a result of the ethnic tension that have characterized Kenyan politics since independence in 1963.

Regrettably, those pursuing this country-congau line do not seem to reason with such difficult and contemporary experiences from nearby counties. Worse of all, these advocates unfortunately include those with difficult leadership records over a short space of time. They have never been deprived of participation. Some have been a part of every leadership structure since 1980, but again they have not provided the service our people need and desire. What positions do they need to provide these services?
The category of people running this route are posing a danger for Liberia. This group includes the old establishment politicians, but also enroll the young, urbane, professionals. Already, this advocacy seems to be yielding fruits of a tribalized elections, as 40.3% of respondents in a survey conducted by the Liberia Holding Consortium (May 2017) say they will vote on a country-congau basis. This is quite sad, as we cannot be using our education to foster discrimination. This is so distant from the sainted Mandela’s well stated maxim: “For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” We should rather be utilizing our ideas about making Liberia better!

Other than those shouting the country-congau divide, there are other candidates toying with the rhetoric of aligning with one populous county or another. They are also part of the problem. Fact is, two, three or four populous counties can simply team up, and screw all others out. They could furthermore perpetually keep leadership among themselves - on the basis of county population and perhaps tribal alignment. It could be seen as democratic and within the context of the law, but when others begin to feel marginalized, they will obviously utilize unacceptable options to redeem themselves. This is sad!

If such a difficult scenario unfolds, Liberia should think about the possibility of keeping this alive. In the event of a fall-out, because one or another of the coalition members feels discriminated against or slighted, they would form a new alliance. This could lead to deeper offenses and the further possibilities of using all means possible to get even. With this brand of politicking, we are on the verge of violence!

For this election, and any other across our lifetime, let's take people on account of their services, not where they come from, and not what they can give us during this campaign. Liberia has come from a very difficult place to be playing with fire. This could be our undoing, and provide room for the renewal of the same dominance we pretend to be fearing.

The examples of people using sectarian, cultural and other divides to dominate others have led to nothing but tension, conflict, war and destruction – even in many parts of Africa.

• The notion of Ivoirite has been the cause of war and continuing tension in Cote d’Ivoire;
• The demands for an Islamic caliphate is at the heart of the Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria;
• The evolving resurgence of an Igbo nation is leading civil disturbances in southern Nigeria;
• Religious flames are leading crisis in the Central African Republic; and
• Anglo-Franco differences are instigating trouble in Cameroon.

In the sad story of Sudan, religious claim drove the division of that huge country into a north and south. Barely had the ink dried from the disintegration paper, and we saw tribal and other political differences dividing South Sudan further.

As a Muslim, and from one of the smaller tribal groups in Liberia, I do not see this in a positive light. There has been a crusade for the transformation of Liberia into a Christian state - by law. We resisted that, and insist that the Christians should simply convince all others to join their faith by their actions and engagements. We are glad that the government and the international community frowned upon this, and at some point, the theocracy is no longer a part of the national conversation. We cannot turn this around. We cannot be saying no to religious dominance in one breath, and practicing ethnic superiority in another. For once, our education and experiences should lead Liberia into a positive light - not into a realm of darkness.

Already, on the eve of these elections, we are now faced with a law that effectively disenfranchises a number of people, for merely agreeing to provide government service. This is not to defend those who use public service for their personal benefits, but to note that the ethical issues we need to address must be seen holistically. The truth is, lots of other government officials daily violate rules surrounding public facilities and resources, but they are not punished. In short, they have not sought further offices, and no one is bothered about them. Of course, the concern we want to address is abuse of public offices. Until we have a fully integrated strategy among integrity institutions, our resources will ultimately be subject to abuse, fraud and waste.

But more to the issue of tribal or ethnic claims, if the citizens of the United States had made such wild claims about race, Barack Obama would never have become president. And if the claims being pursued by the Trump fanatics, the Jean Marine Le Pen and other ultra-nationalists come to pass, Europe and America would not have any black or at best Arab or Muslim-like citizens.

But regardless of how we run this debate, the crucial fact remains that the 2017 elections in Liberia mark a significant transition. Liberia must in turn observe this transition in an especially transformative light. This should ensure a better and more functional Liberia - derived by all Liberians working together on an agenda that benefits all Liberians.

This position is supported by the Director of the National Youth Movement for Transparent Elections (NAYMOTE), Mr Eddie Jarwolo, who notes on facebook that democracy holds: “…elected officials … accountable to the people, and they must return to the voters at prescribed intervals to seek their mandate to continue in office or [be] voted out. Let’s support issue-based elections/campaign in Liberia and hold elected official accountable.” I agree!

With the ongoing trend, we predict that an indigenous vote would sooner lead to a bigger tribe argument. And before we know, smaller tribes would be on one side of the divide. This will be followed by the claim about one group being more Liberian than the other, and worse the resurgence of the Christian state debate, and our little Liberia would be in flames. We cannot afford this in Liberia any further.

For once, the Liberian story must be about a great leap involving all, and towards a sustainable drive for Liberia. That story should involve the extent to which politicians and governments can link their accomplishments in education, energy, access to finance, sustainable development to the plans they marketed to voters ahead of the elections. We can use this to signal that Liberia (even Africa) can mark reasons for which the sad stories of migration, disease and poverty can be reversed.
I insist, a Better Liberia is Possible, and that betterment can begin now with a fully inclusive transition.

Beyond the Outrage: Prioritizing Women Rights is Critical for Liberia’s Development Agenda

The Liberia Feminist Forum and other women and human right groups in Liberia are saddened by the limited attention being paid to the alarming rate of violence against women and girls. Disassociations by state and political leaderships and outbursts by policy makers are devoid of their role and responsibilities as duty bearers, reinforcing the marginalization of women and their “issues” to temporary sideshows. We are therefore calling on the government and stakeholders to recognize and support the full realization of women rights in Liberia.

The gradual disintegration of women's rights in Liberia is a result of multiple issues including systems of oppression and exclusion and the continuous perception and practice that put women's rights in an optional category.  

For far too long, we have seen women's rights engaged as a side issue.
A donor funded issue.
An issue that 10 men can discuss in 10 minute slots in one day.
A women's group issue.
A three year project.
A trendy thing that our leaders put on their agenda twice every decade.

Over the recent weeks, this disintegration has unfolded with horrific stories of domestic violence, rape, and sexual abuse compounded by the abuse of power and resources.
Christine Dennis Freeman brutally attacked and severely injured by her husband; Doris Yahn fatally shot and killed by her husband for simply not giving him sufficient food;
A 13 year old raped and impregnated by a lawmaker;
A 16 year old raped and impregnated by a current government official;
42 year old woman gang raped to death after attending a popular musician’s funeral program.

What we are witnessing in 2017 is the continuum of the denial of rights, dignity and humanity of women and girls in Liberia.A donors’ issue hence the lack of accountability and investment in the access to justice system.

This starts as early with marginalization of young girls and harmful traditional practices such as FGM and forced marriage. Yet, we continue to hear how FGM is our culture and our leaders promote a pro-FGM judge to oversee the very court responsible for addressing sexual violence.

We still have no state forensic lab to enable swift prosecution for sexual and gender base violence (SGBV) cases and perpetrators continue to walk away with impunity. Gender and justice services at community and county level are understaffed, ill capacitated and without logistics. Women walk two to three hours to the nearest police station to report domestic violence but the police are unable to investigate because there is no transportation or fuel.

This violation continues, across all spaces and sectors of our country.When young women are trafficked and subjected to slavery, sexual assault and rape;When young women and girls are sexually harassed and exploited in schools and universities across the country (sex for grades);
When women are denied their rights to land under customary provisions;
When women continue to die giving birth due to poor and or lack of medical care;
When women rights activists and feminists who challenge the status quo are marginalized, excluded and labeled;
When women make up more than 50% of the agriculture and informal sectors, yet Private Sector Development Initiative (PSDI) funds are diverted to businesses owned by finance staff or close contacts;

We are often reminded in these disassociations and outbursts that women are also at the helm of these institutions and part of the leadership (executive, legislature, and judicial). So, let’s do the math. How many women are in those positions and what is the ratio to their male counterparts? One may also ask, don’t we have a system to address crime and protect Liberian citizens? So, who has leadership within that system? Police, courts, community leaders, budget makers...Are all of these stakeholders women?

The violence against women, girls and people of different sexual orientations in our country is rooted in a strong patriarchal society that has promoted the oppression and exclusion of women, girls and people of different sexual orientations through the normalization of gender roles. This means that the demand for action is also on those same women, girls and marginalized communities to fix it while the privileged ones sit and watch. We have institutionalized this to the point that our national development strategy treats the oppression and exclusion of women and girls as the 'soft issues' and gender equality as a thing to be 'encouraged'.

We all know about “boys to boys and girls to girls”.Men speak about the oil blocks and spend time on endorsements...making presidents. Women are supposed to stick to their daughters’ and regulate their body parts and the other 'soft issues'. Pun intended.

Men engage in debates on allocation of state resources and their political aspirations and women are relegated to dancers, cooks and “angels”. Political hierarchies and national security discussions rarely include women at the table. National “security” plans are decided by all men while SGBV is a “Gender Ministry issue”. We cheer on a national all men’s conference on addressing gender based violence and promoting gender equality but seek women outrage to tackle the very same issues. We promote men as “He for She” champions but then demand women rights groups to solve the challenges that affect women. Instead of a comprehensive sexual education across our schools, we promote moral education because girls need to be concerned about how they dress than boys who rape or abuse them. When lawyers call on women activists and feminists to solve rape issues, are they speaking from their professional experience or the patriarchal position that says men must not deal with vagina issues unless they are having sex or in the locker rooms? That is a serious question.

So beyond the current outrage, we need to hold our government accountable. This is not an NGO program or a donor project. This is a human right issue that our government has made commitments to. Beyond the outbursts, we need to examine how disassociations by our leaders and duty bearers reinforce the marginalization of women and their “issues” to temporary sideshows. Beyond the outrage, let us also begin to interrogate why we have a sociological imperative that says women and girls must suffer rights violation to keep society 'stable'? And please...let it not be in two hour all male conferences.

Liberia has signed and ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, 1984) and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa. We acknowledge the efforts made by the government thus far including the establishment of the Human Rights Division at the Ministry of Justice, the Women and Children Protection Unit of the Liberian National Police and the Independent Human Rights Commission. However, with all these good structures, lack of political will to enforce existing legal frameworks and adequate funding limit their full implementation. There is now a law on Gender and Sexually Based Violence (2008) providing for a special court to try sexual violence crimes and a draft Domestic Violence Bill in the senate. The goals of equality, development, peace and social justice can only be achieved with the active participation of women and the incorporation of women’s perspective in all levels of decision making. We have identified five main issues we hope to see prioritized to ensure Liberia’s development is inclusive and sustainable, particularly:

 Swift investigation into the national current cases especially those involving public officials as this government’s commitment to ending the culture of impunity for perpetrators of sexual and gender based violence.
 Non-confirmation and withdrawal of the nomination of Serena F. Garlawolu as a resident judge for the Criminal Court “E”. We seek a replacement dedicated to protecting women and girls from all forms of sexual and gender based violence and human rights violations.
 Full implementation of CEDAW and harmonization of customary and statutory laws and practices to protect women, girls and key populations from violence including traditional practices that affect their health and well-being; increase women’s access to own land, and participate in governance and management of resources. We specifically demand the passage of the current Domestic Violence Bill, Land Rights Act (with stronger provisions to guarantee women tenure, ownership and control); and a full ban on FGM.

 Increased investment in gender responsive public services to ensure that women and girls have opportunity to life free of violence and have access to quality health, education, and decent work. This includes specifically an increase in budgetary support to the Ministry of Justice and the Women and Children Protection Unit and county gender offices.

Full implementation of a comprehensive sexual health education program to ensure that women and young people (girls and boys) have equal access to quality and timely information and services.
Women Rights are Human Rights.

Liberian Feminist Forum ● medica liberia ● ActionAid Liberia ● Paramount Young Women Initiative

Public Interest versus Self Interest in Western and African Politics

This article starts with a disclaimer that it is totally my opinion that has nothing to do with where I work/who I work for. It is not to hurt the sentiments of anyone. So, please don’t feel offended.

The study of Comparative Politics established the fact that, what is common to all human societies is the impossibility to aloof interest from politics. A careful analysis of Prof. Harold Lasswell conceptualization of power (“Who Gets What, When, How”) as one of the keys thematic in comparative politics will convince you that Politics by itself, is driven by interest to either serve and ensure the common good of the society or for personal aggrandizement. By this, it suggests that interest by itself is never repulsive in politics. Against this background, this article meticulously examines public interest versus self-interest in Western and African Politics.

As the concept implies, public interest in politics connotes the common concerns that are critical to the well-being or welfare of the general public or citizens. It varies from country to country. It is what the people want actually not necessarily what politicians want or desire. It reflects the security, economic, social, political, cultural concerns of the citizens. It is priority or will of the citizens. For example, citizens’ desire for stemming the ties of corruption because of its implication for their welfare or well-being has become one of the old aged concerns in post-independent Africa.

A careful analysis of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke contribution to the social contract theory explains the root of public interest in politics. According to them, when the government fails to secure their natural rights (Locke) or satisfy the best interests of society (called the "general will" in Rousseau), citizens can withdraw their obligation to obey, or change the leadership through elections or other means including, when necessary, violence. The best interests of the society that explain the existence of government validate the root of public interest. In other words, the essence for entering into politics is to strive to meet the expectation or satisfy the will and concerns of the citizens or members of the political community.

Self-interest as implies in politics connotes personal aggrandizement as the reason for desiring political offices. It could be strategic to the quest for personal wealth, fame, power, service to humanity, etc. It can be repulsive and good in politics. For example, in order to judiciously distribute resources in the interest of humanity, politicians will never succeed without power. Remember, power in politics is critical to the resources of societies. If politicians gained fame as a result of servicing humanity, adherence to the will of the society, it becomes a political dividend though personal. If politicians used power against the will of the society, it becomes repulsive. Consequently, society withdraws their obligation to obey, or change the leadership through elections or other means including, when necessary, violence.

In Western politics, it is observed that public interest has always been the priority. It triumphs over self-interest of politicians. Ask yourself, why Africans from time in memorial prefer living, studying or migrating to the Western countries despite their inevitable challenges? It is because the interests of their states or countries remain the ultimate concerns for their political actors? Isn’t true that their level of development bear attestation of public interests prioritized by their political actors or politicians?
Take for classic example the disputed election results in Florida between George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000. It worth arguing that the interest of the America was more important than Al Gore. As defeated candidate, Al Gore was the first to congratulate Bush. If this situation has happened in Africa, the interest of the defeated candidate would have plunged the country into crisis as evidenced by the many post-election violence.

In Western politics, it is no doubt that politicians don’t benefit personally. Of course, by virtue of their positions, they arguably enjoy fame, prestige, lucrative salaries and incentives. Take for example, from 2009- 2014, U.S Congress earned $174,000 per annum. (Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia online Source) However, it can be argued that their personal interest or benefits will never be detrimental to public interest or the very society they belong to. They will never leave their countries to visit Africa for medical reasons neither face brain dream situation in which their citizens will migrate to Africa for greener pasture.

Judging from post-independence politics evidenced by the dozen of arm conflicts that undermined development in Africa, it can be that public interests continue to be lips service by political actors. Unlike the West, the primary reason for entering politics and staying in office is typically strategic to money in African politics. Politicians rarely have it, and they all need it in. Take the case of contemporary politics in Liberia; some that were fortunate for political office never have money.

In contemporary African politics, the interest of politicians triumphs over the interest of their countries. For classic example, research revealed that most of the countries in Africa have the highest paid legislators but unwilling to address public health care concern evidenced by weak health facilities couple with constant strike actions by doctors’ demand for better salaries and incentives. Take the case of Kenya, it is widely known that Kenya has one of the highest paid legislators in Africa earning approximately $20,000 per month, can’t pay doctors. According to the World Health Organisation, Kenya has one doctor for every 5,000 people compared to 2.5 per 1,000 in the US and probably higher in Europe, Middle East and Far East. Take the case of Nigerian; According to data from the Economist 2015, Nigerian lawmakers at the time of the exchange rate would earn around $160,000 more than British MPs who make around $105,000 per annum. Moreover, in a country where millions live on less than two dollars daily and minimum wage is set at $90 a month, just like Kenya poor health care system, the average legislators’ pay is more than 50 times Nigeria‘s GDP per capita. Ironically, the President earns less than the lawmakers.

Take the case of Liberia; a country ravaged by fourteen years civil war that accounted for weak or poor health care system, very poor infrastructure development, Educational system engulfed by mess, etc. , each Representative receives over US$14,342.00 while each Senator gets US$15,424.33 monthly. This excludes other expenses done annually. Ironically, the least salary for a civil servants is about US 100.00 per month.

From the above examples, can you clearly rationalize that the interests of these politicians are far more important than public interests compare to politicians in the West?
Will you agree that it is never bad for law makers to earn what could be rationalized as lucrative salaries? Of course, stratification in every society is inherent. In other words, it is not wrong to increase law makers’ salaries. Just like some of their counterparts in the Western countries, they are honorable people. However, in the midst of pressing public concerns as referenced in the case of Kenya, Nigeria and Liberia in this article, it is doubtful for Western politicians to place their personal interest above the public interest. This is why their societies in terms of development in the interest of the public are far better than what we have in Africa. Regardless of the sources of their resources (whether exploit Africa or not), they never lost sight of the interest of their citizens in the distribution of scare resources.

Unlike the Western politics, it can be argued that concessions and contract are driven by the self-interests of Politicians in Africa. Consequently, they are termed bogus. According to a dispatch from Washington, D.C., African Development Bank (AfDB) and the World Bank (WB) observation, natural resources contribute more than 20% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 22 resource-rich countries in Africa; however, they noted that fragility remains a major constraint on the extent to which the resources are contributing to equitable and sustainable development on the continent. Who else benefited from these concessions and contracts since it was not the public? The answer will definitely reflect on the law makers of these countries as required by their respective constitutions. Take the case of Liberia; according to the guardian online source, only two out of 68 contracts awarded by Liberian government since 2009 in sectors such as oil are compliant. According to the report published by the guardian, most of the logging permits covering one quarter of the Liberia were given out illegally.

In African politics, because the self-interests of politicians always triumphed over public interests, the continent will continue to grippe with the phenomenon of Brian Dream. The poor or lack of development crucial to the public interest caused by the self-interests of Politicians are the push factors for brain dream in Africa.

By Ambrues M. Nebo Sr.



The case, Selena Mappy-Polson v. The Government of Liberia (Supreme Court of Liberia Opinion decided March 3, 2017) grew out of a Petition for Declaratory Judgment at the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court for Bong County, Republic of Liberia; heard by the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia on July 18, 2016 and subsequently decided by the High Court on March 3, 2017. The Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the Code of Conduct Act of 2014; which constrained the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia, to articulate three distinct, significant, and fundamental principles of law, in our opinion.

The fundamental principles of law enunciated by the High Court in the Mappy-Polson’s opinion are not only germane to our contemporary body politic, but sin-qua-non to the development and elevation of our jurisprudence. Amongst them are 1) that the Code of Conduct Act of 2014 is constitutional, 2) that the right to vote is a fundamental right, though not explicitly recognized under Chapter three (Fundamental Rights) of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia and 3) that appeals emanating from the Office of the Ombudsman must be taken to the Honorable Supreme Court en banc.

In delineating the constitutionality of the Code of Conduct Act of 2014, though a tight decision by the High Court (3 in favor and 2 against), His Honor, Justice Ja’neh speaking for the majority bloc of the Supreme Court held that ‘in the wisdom of the Legislature, the inclusion of Sections 5.1 and 5.2 in the Code of Conduct Act were compelling necessity to ensuring curtailment of wanton abuse of public resources and misuse of public offices or positions to acquire undue electoral advantage. Not having been able to find any law upon which we could rely to question the wisdom of the Legislature in this regard, we hold that the Code of Conduct Act, whether in whole or in part, does not violate the Liberian Constitution’.Selena Mappy-Polson v. The Government of Liberia, opinion of the Supreme Court of Liberia, decided March 3, 2017.

The petitioner went on to make another strong argument that the code of conduct violates her equal protection rights under the Constitution of Liberia and as such, the code should be declared unconstitutional.

In disposing of her argument on Equal Protection, the Supreme Court relied on Article 11 (c) of the constitution of Liberia. The court said ‘this Court must emphasize that the organic law of this land guarantees equality and equal treatment of all persons under the law. Article 11 (c) of the Liberian Constitution (1986), assuring this sovereign guarantee, speaks the following language: ‘All persons are equal before the law and are therefore entitled to equal protection of the law’. Article 18 of the Constitution also directs: all Liberian citizens shall have equal opportunity for work and employment regardless of sex, creed, religion, ethnic background, place of origin, or political affiliation, and shall be entitled to equal pay for equal work.

Citing the constitutional provisions supra, the court also relied on two case laws to quash the Petitioner’s argument. The court relied on a landmark opinion delivered by Former Chief Justice Gloria Musu-Scott’s Bench captioned Republic of Liberia versus The Leadership of the Liberian National Bar Association, et al (40 LLR 635 , 2001) and harmonized a definitional standard set by the United States Supreme Court on Equal Protection in the Miller v. Johnson case, 515 U.S. 900 (1995).

In elucidating Equal Protection in the Republic of Liberia versus The Leadership of the Liberian National Bar Association’s case, the court stated that: Equal Protection of the law means that no person shall be subjected to any restriction in the acquisition of property, the enjoyment of personal liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which do not generally affect others; that no person shall be liable to others or greater burdens and charges than such as are laid upon others; that no greater or different punishment is enforced against a person for a violation of the law.

Consistent with the General Construction Law, Title 15 of the Liberian Code of Laws Revised or the Reception Statute, in citing the Miller v. Johnson’s opinion delivered by the Federal Supreme Court of the United States of America, the Supreme Court of Liberia referenced the case and stated that equal protection guarantee is the guiding principle that all persons shall be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions, both in privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed.

For the legal reasons cited, the Supreme Court of Liberia held that ‘ in this jurisdiction the Supreme Court of Liberia cannot and will not declare an Act of the Legislature as unconstitutional unless the Court is convinced beyond the slightest uncertainty that the legislation is patently in conflict with the constitution’.Selena Mappy-Polson v. The Government of Liberia, opinion of the Supreme Court of Liberia, decided March 3, 2017.

On the second fundamental principle of law expounded by the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia in the Selena Mappy-Polson’s opinion, the court held that the right to vote is a fundamental right, though not explicitly recognized under Chapter three (Fundamental Rights) of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia.

In making a determination of this sacred fundamental right, the court said ‘as important as the right to vote is, the Liberian Constitution (1986) does not specifically list the right to vote under those expressly listed as fundamental. Id. This is evidenced by the omission of the right to vote from Chapter 3, Articles 11 – 25 of the Liberian Constitution. Nowhere in the Fundamental Rights Section of our Constitution is the right to vote mentioned. This leaves this Court to wonder, as far as Liberian laws are concerned, whether the right to vote could be a sanctioned fundamental right? By omitting the right to vote from Chapter 3 of the Constitution, one may ponder whether the framers of the Constitution intended or did not intend to recognize right to vote as amongst the fundamental rights in the Republic?

Justice Ja’neh speaking for the court said, we hasten to mention that though not expressly included as a fundamental right in Chapter 3, the right to vote as a fundamental right can and should be implied from the terms of Article 77 (b), which is consistent with rule in varying common law jurisdictions and enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, already ratified by Liberia’. Id.

The last principle of law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in the Mappy-Polson’s opinion is that appeals emanating from the Office of the Ombudsman must be taken to the Honorable Supreme Court en banc.

The Code of Conduct Act did not explicitly touch on appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman is a statutory derivative of Part 12 of the Code of Conduct Act of 2014. The office is to act as a forum of first instant and exercise original jurisdiction in investigating breach of the Code of Conduct Act, consistent with provisions of the code.

In the opinion of the court, the Supreme Court held that ‘all appeals from decisions or rulings entered by the Ombudsman on questions of eligibility, imposition of sanctions, etc., arising from the Code of Conduct Act, shall lie before this Court en banc for hearing and determination as required by law. Selena Mappy-Polson v. The Government of Liberia, opinion of the Supreme Court of Liberia, decided March 3, 2017.

The Supreme Court of Liberia concluded by stating emphatically that, ‘the objective function of the Code of Conduct Law is to divorce the fiduciary duty of trust, integrity and loyalty owed by public officials to the people of Liberia from their personal desires to contest elections at the expense of public resources. The court further said it ‘sees no other least restrictive means of preventing abuse of public resources by public officials than requiring these officials to relinquish access and control of those resources within a reasonable time period of departure from those public offices as a prior eligibility requirement to contest in public elections’. Id.

With all of the controversies and rumors surrounding the Code of Code Act of 2014 and the latest Supreme Court of Liberia’s opinion on the constitutionality of the code, the Supreme Court of Liberia is on the side of the Law of the land, consistent with Article 90 (a, b, & c) of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia.

The opinion in the Selena Mappy-Polson’s case has edified and strengthened the Code on Conduct Act on one hand, and has reinvigorated and resuscitated all of the statutory provisions within the code on the other hand. This opinion has also put our democracy on the right trajectory of an equal playing field and put an immediate end to the grand old ploy of presidential appointees possessing undue advantage over others in the process of competing for elected positions in government by using government resources to support their campaigns.

The future of the Code of Conduct Act is promising and bright, that is why the code has prescribed a reasonable time frame for appointed officials of government to resign either two years (for non-tenured positions) or three years (for tenured positions) if they intend to participate in national elections. But above all, the law is the law; it bends for no man (citizen).




In his press statement (Front Page Africa, March 16, 2017), Senator George Weah said “I spoke to Taylor recently during one of our Coalition meetings . . . and said Mr. President, how are you . . . I must give him due courtesy and say hello”.

What are the political Implications?

Although “there was no law broken” by the telephone conversation between two prominent, Liberian citizens, Mr. Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia and Honorable George Weah, Montserrado County Senator, but this article takes reflective look at the recent facts of history concerning these honorable gentlemen for possible answer to the question.

Firstly, Mr. Charles McArthur Taylor is not just another “Joe Blow” citizen of Liberia, but the convicted-felon serving a 50-year prison term in maximum security facility in the United Kingdom for political Crimes against Humanity, committed in the sister Republic of sierra Leone while serving as President of Liberia.

Simultaneously, in Liberia, there were, also, political crimes against humanity committed by the Charles Taylor-led NPFL/INPFL in which not only an estimated quarter of million Liberians were killed, massive looting, theft of public/private properties and mind-boggling destruction of the nation’s meagre infrastructure, but also, that known perpetrators of these crimes are still running around in Liberia and the world community with characteristic impunity, as ordained “Honorables”.

Meanwhile, the Truth & Reconciliation Commission (TRC) “roadmap” enacted by Liberian Law for administration of Transitional Justice - trial and punishment of the guilty with amnesty given to those such amnesty is due - in the post-conflict, democratic environment, has (that TRC Roadmap) been, and is now, gathering dust in the offices of the “Honorables”.

Moreover, there are hundreds of millions of Liberians displaced in neighboring and distant countries’ refugee camps, with millions more who fled the Taylor-led atrocities and took up naturalized citizenships of foreign countries.

And secondly, comes the Honorable George Weah who is not only Montserrado County Senator, but also, declared candidate for president of Liberia for the third time, with claims to be leader of a grass-roots-based political party, the CDC. As Flag Bearer, he stood for President two times (2005 & 2011) and lost to Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf on each occasion.

During the 2005 campaign, Mr. Weah was accused by a coalition of Liberians of being foreign citizen (the Republic of France). That issue, with many others, was handled with “kid gloves” by the-then NEC and swept under the rugs. In today’s third run campaign, Mr. Weah has been accused, by a member of his CDC and others, with photograph of a US passport, of being US citizen. That issue, again, was swept under the rugs by the Cllr. Korkoyah-led NEC, with the Counselor, himself, now stands accused of being US citizen by a prominent leader of a political party. There has been no response from the Counselor-Chairman of the NEC.

Due to lack of requisite political training, experience and political leadership finesse, the Soccer-legend, Mr. George Weah with CDC, sought alliances with the gurus – Lawyer/Diplomat/Politician, Cllr. Winston Tubman and Corporate Lawyer/Politician, Cllr. Charles Brumskine of the Liberty Party. These alliances fizzled and the Soccer-legend-turned Politician withdrew to himself into the CDC, desperate for political power at all and any cost, apparently, including selling his soul to the devil.

Mr. George Weah was appointed Peace Ambassador and National Reconciliation Chairman by none other than his political opponent, two times, at the highest level, Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, President of Liberia. He was given, reportedly, US $5 million for operations. In a MICAT press briefing, Mr. Weah declared that he will use international Soccer Stars to effect national reconciliation. Since then, we have heard nothing about national reconciliation until after Senator Weah’s celebrated, press-reported telephone contact with Mr. Charles Taylor.

The press reports quote Mr. Menikpake Dumoe, CDC Coalition Assistant Secretary for Press & Propaganda (who was probably present at Coalition meeting in which the telephone call to Mr. Taylor was made and he, Mr. Dumoe who, probably, gave the telephone device to Senator Weah) was quoted as saying, “the CDC leader’s (Senator Weah’s) communication with the former President . . . is a manifestation that the Coalition is ready to reconcile Liberia. Speaking with Charles Taylor . . . means that the Coalition for Democratic Change is ready to reconcile Liberians, no matter who they are or what they did; we are not going to go after anybody. We do not want war Crime Court to divide us . . .”

“Apparently desperate for political power”, Senator George Weah and the CDC Coalition are getting or have gotten into the shadow - socio-cultural, economic and political control/manipulation of a socially-rebellious, flamboyant play-boy, also political power & money addict and center-stage seeker, now an internationally-convicted political crime

criminal - by taking his (Mr. Charles Taylor’s) ex-wife for Vice Presidential running mate on the CDC Coalition ticket, with George Weah as president, maybe not long, but likely, Vice President.

The CDC Coalition’s (or Dumoe’s) Notion of Reconciliation

In the context of the Liberian, political community that experienced an illegal, armed conflict in which all of us, Liberians, an overwhelming majority, suffered the impact of Charles Taylor-led criminal “freedom fighters”, a tiny minority’s escapades of hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens brutally tortured, maimed, raped and summarily executed, the families of the dead, loved ones, the living victims of this cruel adventure, with known perpetrators still walking around with impunity, a court of law is the proper, traditional approach for trial and punishment of the guilty as remedy for the dead, loved ones, living victims of the conflict. This approach is also traditional, moral house-cleaning that sends out the message, loud and clear, that no one is above the law.

The approach is, finally, national reconciliation, because it unites the people with security, once divided, and rehabilitates, with amnesty, perpetrators of human rights violations. Accordingly, Reconciliation, like the famous, South American dance, tango, (“takes two to tango”) takes two to be successful; that is, that it takes the coming together of the victim(s) of the wrongful acts (human rights violators) on the one hand, and the confessed, remorseful, guilty ones of the wrongful acts, on the other, come together, under the auspices of the national government to “settle the quarrel and re-establish friendly relations” – peaceful co-existence, mutual understanding, respect and cooperation - or national reconciliation.

But according to CDC Coalition Assistant Secretary for Press & Propaganda, the Coalition’s notion of Reconciliation is to do nothing, no War Crime Court, continue the process of impunity and most importantly, deliver the government to the leaders of the very same perpetrators of Liberia’s historic, very serious human rights violations. This approach is not an opposition to the out-going Government of Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, but “new wine in old bottle”, with the theme of “business as usual” and “stay the course”.

The only new scenario is that of Mr. Charles Taylor who, like the convicted and imprisoned Mafia Don, continues to run the affairs of Brotherhood from behind bars with iron-hand.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are that of the writer and not of the paper


L'Europe en manque de démocratie

MILAN – L'avenir de l'UE ne sera pas officiellement en jeu lors des élections qui viennent d'avoir lieu en Hollande et qui se tiendront prochainement en France, en Allemagne et en Italie, pourtant leur résultat pourrait être déterminant.

L'hostilité à l'égard de l'UE est plus répandue que jamais, ainsi que le montrent les campagnes électorales des insurgés populistes comme Geert Wilders en Hollande et Marine Le Pen en France. Mais les signes d'une renaissance ou d'une réinvention de l'UE apparaissent maintenant - par exemple dans les prises de position de Manuel Macron en France ou de Martin Schulz en Allemagne.

Pour être convaincantes, les campagnes favorables à l'UE doivent aborder les problèmes liés à l'euro. Adoptée par 19 des 28 membres de l'UE (27 après le Brexit), la monnaie commune est devenue une source majeure de désillusion quant à l'intégration européenne. Bien que la crise de l'euro sous sa forme aiguë soit derrière nous, la zone euro reste une construction fragile. En cas de nouvel épisode de volatilité, les doutes sur sa survie pourraient réapparaître rapidement.

A la racine de la fragilité de l'euro se trouvent les défauts de conception du traité de Maastricht qui exige que les membres de la zone euro aient la même politique monétaire et des politiques budgétaires qui se plient à des règles budgétaires communes. Mais la simple existence de règles budgétaires s'est avérée insuffisante en l'absence de mécanisme européen chargé de veiller à leur respect.

Si cette situation perdure, il y aura toujours le risque que les pays les plus faibles de la zone euro se surendettent, obligeant les pays les plus forts à choisir entre une aide financière en leur faveur, politiquement inacceptable, et la sortie de la zone euro des pays les plus endettés, avec le risque d'une instabilité qui pourrait remettre en question le projet européen. Une victoire des forces pro-européennes au cours des élections à venir pourrait être l'occasion - peut-être la dernière - de procéder aux réformes indispensables du traité de Maastricht.

Ces réformes seront difficiles à mettre en œuvre, car les Européens devront accepter une remise en question des bases de la zone euro. Cette dernière devrait inclure une autorité politique disposant d'une légitimité démocratique au lieu de reposer sur le simple engagement des pays membres à respecter des normes de gouvernance économique.

En l'absence d'union politique, on peut comprendre que la gouvernance de la zone euro se limite à ce seul engagement. C'est dans la logique de l'indépendance de la banque centrale : des responsables non élus sont tenus de se conformer à un ensemble de règles strictes, telles que le respect d'une cible donnée en matière de taux d'inflation. Mais cette logique n'a pas fonctionné pour la zone euro, car ces règles n'ont pas suffi à éviter les pressions en faveur d'une politique redistributive dont les électeurs ne veulent pas.

Maintenant que cela est évident, des voix s'élèvent pour que le marché joue un rôle plus important pour faire respecter la discipline. Ce point de vue s'exprime par exemple dans les propositions en faveur d'un nouveau cadre d'attribution des prêts souverains dans le sens d'une restructuration ordonnée.

L'une de ces propositions consiste à modifier le fonctionnement du Mécanisme européen de stabilité pour qu'il ressemble à celui du FMI. Cela éviterait d'attribuer des prêts à des pays insolvables et imposerait le reprofilage ou la restructuration d'une dette quand elle dépasse un certain seuil. Cette politique redonnerait crédibilité à la règle du traité de Maastricht qui interdit tout soutien financier à un pays membre et n'imposerait pas un fardeau excessif à la politique monétaire.

A elle seule, cette proposition ne résoudrait pas le problème. Au sein d'une union monétaire la crainte d'une contagion est toujours justifiée, car les facteurs externes à l'origine d'une crise de la dette dans un pays peuvent contaminer au reste de l'union.

Un cadre de restructuration des dettes qui soit fonction du marché a sa place dans une réforme de la zone euro. Il est nécessaire, au même titre qu'un ensemble de règles communes simples. Pour parvenir à une position budgétaire commune et à une meilleure combinaison des mesures monétaires et budgétaires, il faut une autorité budgétaire fédérale indépendante chargée de créer des mécanismes de partage des risques - avec un petit budget et le pouvoir nécessaire pour qu'elle puisse adapter sa politique aux événements.

Si un tel système donne l'impression de porter atteinte à la souveraineté des pays membres il sera inapplicable sur le plan politique. Il faudra convaincre ses opposants de sa légitimité démocratique. En l'absence d'une véritable union politique, il serait possible d'y parvenir en attribuant un rôle beaucoup plus important au Parlement européen tout en renforçant son indépendance et sa transparence, peut-être en coordination avec les parlements nationaux.

Contrairement à ce que prétendent les populistes de droite, le principal problème de l'Europe n'est pas la souveraineté, mais la démocratie. Du fait de l'intégration des marchés, une souveraineté nationale totale est illusoire. Aujourd'hui l’Union européenne a besoin d'un traité qui accroisse sa légitimité démocratique. Préserver les souverainetés nationales fondées sur des institutions conçues pour l'économie européenne du 19° siècle qui était bien moins intégrée est une recette pour l'échec.

Traduit de l’anglais par Patrice Horovitz Lucrezia Reichlin est professeur d'économie à la London Business School. Elle a été directrice du département de recherche à la Banque centrale européenne.

par Lucrezia Reichlin


There is an intensive, increasingly widening political debate arising from the reported massive, political support, in cash and kind, by President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Cllr. Brumskine, leader of an opposition political party and declared candidate for President of Liberia.


The debate began as an inter-party (Unity) infraction of party rules of support and loyalty, especially, by the most senior executive of the party, the Flag Bearer, who stood for and won the Presidency on the party ticket and benefited, immensely, therefrom, but decides to abort and turn against the party and its new leadership, having beenforced to retire because of ineligibility to stand for a third term.

But, in all of this, the most explosive and simmering, national political issue is that Cllr. Brumskine is not only leader of an opposition political party to President Sirleaf’s Unity party, but also, that he (Cllr. Brumskine) is of the Settler-, Americo-Liberian heritage and ruling class; the class that ruled Liberia (a one party, True Whig Party-state) for 133 years and continuing, while Vice President Boakai and the Unity Party that he, now, leads are of indigenous, Liberian heritage.

Thus, during and in the midst or cente of Liberian people’s rightful demand for Changefrom the avalanche of dishonesty and corruption comes the submerged, butdeeply-held and burning, classic, historic struggle for democratic rule – Indigenous “country” Liberians VERSUS Settler-, Americo-Liberians has now become the nation’s “gathering storms”, a critical and crucial decision- making centrepiece for the up-coming general elections.

This historic struggle motivated and explains the April 12, 1980 Event, the military coup d’état.

Although there has been, and is, also, reported conflicting statements of denials regarding the reported support by the President of Cllr. Brumskine, this article takes a look at the facts of history and of Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf’s rise and use of political power.

Liberia’s Centennial Celebration, 1847-1947
In his book (Liberia: A Century of Survival, 1847-1947) published on the 100th birth anniversary of the founding of the Liberian State, Raymond Leslie Buel held, in a classic, prophetic observation, that “It seems only a matter of time when the preponderance of the ‘civilized Natives’ (indigenous Liberians) over the Americo-Liberians will become overwhelming. Once awakened to western ideas of democracy and freedom”, he wrote, “the educated Natives will demand the right to participate in government . . . But whether the struggle (for political participation, equality and justice) becomes violent or whether the transition of power to the Natives is gradual (and peaceful, for benefit of all citizens) depends on the wisdom of the present, governing class (of Americo-Liberians) . . . Undoubtedly”, he continued, “some membersof the Americo-Liberian oligarchy do not wish to open up and develop the hinterland . . .”(Buell, 1947).

The Open-Door and National Unification Policies
Upon becoming President of Liberia in 1944, Dr. William V. S. Tubman announced and launched the Open Door Policy (Wreh, 1976) and later, the Unification Policy in a speech in the city of Voinjama, Lofa County. These efforts were in response to the realization that economic development and unity are critical ingredients for total development of the nation. Therefore, the President created the first four, new counties in the hinterland, rural Liberia – Grand Gedeh, Nimba, Bong and Lofa counties in 1964. With creation of the counties came the inevitable, senate and house representations, then vehemently opposed and denied (Smith, 1964).

The effort of the Open Door Policy was designed as a public policy instrument which would or could provide economic benefits, with political benefits of participation by legislative representation of hinterland citizens in rural Liberia. But, Gus Liebenow describes, graphically, that the “. . . appearance of reform being far greater than reality . . . the Tubman engine ran out of steam . . . It was clear that the overwhelming thrust of integration . . . of the First Republic was still in the direction of accepting settler (African-American, founding fathers) rather than tribal norms of behavior. . . Detracting from the benefits to be derived from the extension to the tribal hinterland of suffrage and representation in the Legislature”, he wrote, “was the fact that elections had actually become almost meaningless exercises within the single-party state”.

Continuing, he concluded that “real power had gravitated even more effectively from the legislature to the president and those influential Americo-Liberians who surrounded him. Although education provided more bureaucratic jobs for tribal youth and lower-income Americo-Liberians, the really significant executive, legislative, judicial and ambassadorial positions were retained by the leading families at the core of the Americo-Liberian elite” (Liebenow, 1987).

Put bluntly, although President Tubman’s vision of liberalism and national unification,as critical pre-condition for national, economic development were recognized, appreciated and rewarded by the Liberian people with a 27-year reign as president, butthe oppressive marginalization and denial of basic, civil and political rights of the people, by someLiberians (Americo-Liberians), still continues a shocking reality.

Ellen Johnson
Ellen Johnson is the product of the City of Monrovia (of the 1940s & 1950s) dominated by the settler-, Americo-Liberians’ socio-cultural, economic and political hegemony, although her paternal grandfather was an indigenous Gola tribesman, while her maternal grandmother was, also, an indigenous woman of the Sapo or Kru tribe. Her mother was the daughter of a German businessman, “A fair-skinned child with long wavy hair, she could almost pass for white . . .” .

Ellen’s father, son of the Gola tribesman and tribal chief, became ward of a prominent settler-, Americo-Liberian family in Monrovia. They changed his Gola first name, Karnleyto westernized Carney and gave him the family name of Johnson,after a former president of Liberia. The re-naming process symbolized the socio-cultural baptism for complete socio-cultural transformation. The new Carney Johnson and family prospered and became member of the Liberian national Legislature, given its “Americo-Liberian” transformation. Young, Miss Ellen Johnson married young Doc Sirleaf, a mixed indigenous (Mandingo) and settler, Americo-Liberian (Coopers) heritage (Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, 2010).

Education, life-style, attire (until lately, after the April, 1980 Event), mannerism, deportment and body language convey the reality that Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was, and is, socio-culturally European, American, Americo-Liberian, while she is bio-physically indigenous African-Liberian.

Rise to Political Power
Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleafbegan her political career as Ideological foot-solder of the settler-, Americo-Liberian True Whig Party of Liberia and, eventually, became the nation’s Minister of Finance.

Choice of Cllr. Brumskine
Psychologists/socialogists hold and teach that the socio-cultural, economic and political belief systems, tradition and, indeed, worldview of an individual are learned or acquired from the society in which such individual was born, raised or educated. Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was born, raised and educated within the socio-cultural, economic and political belief systems of the Americo-Liberians. Therefore, socio-culturally, economically and politically, Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf is Americo-Liberian, although she is bio-physically indigenous Liberian.

Hence, the motivation of Mrs. Ellen John-Sirleaf’s support of Americo-Liberian, Cllr. Brumskine, although leader of an opposition political party (Liberty Party) to Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf and her ruling, Indigenous Political Party (Unity) founded by indigenous citizens and of which she was Flag Bearer, but now led by Vice President Boakai, an Indigenous citizen.

Buel, Ramond Leslie, Liberia: A Century of Survival, 1847-1947, African Handbook #7, University of Pennsylvania.

Liebenow, Gus,The Quest for Democracy, Indiana University Press, 1987.

Sirleaf, Ellen Johnson-,This Child will be Great, HarperCollins, 2010.

Smith,Robert A., The Emancipation of the (Liberian) Hinterland, The Star Magazine &AdvertisingServices, Monrovia, 1964

Wreh, Tuan, The Love of Liberty, C. Hurst & Co., London, 1976.


Send Refugees Back To War Ravaged Homelands

Boston, Massachusetts-What if governments and philanthropists who are currently investing in refugee resettlement in western countries also consider a proactive investment in a reverse refugee resettlement pilot project voluntarily sending refugees back from the west to the post-conflict African countries they once fled? What if the returning refugees are given access to resources and economic incentives such as visa waivers, zero interest loans, duty free privileges, tax breaks and waivers of business registration fees by a collaboration of both the host government and the western nations in which refugees were exiled with the aim of a refugee-led revitalization of the private sector, promoting reconciliation and democratic change?

What if western taxpayers rethink foreign aid, aiming to produce economic growth by tapping into the patriotism, family connections and entrepreneurial spirit of refugees in western countries? What if?For nearly half a century, investments in peacekeeping, refugee resettlement and foreign aid to war ravaged African countries have not resulted in stable democracies and thriving economies. For example, despite the huge decade-long investments of international partners in Liberia, the country is still dangerously volatile economically and democratically. The Liberian economy is a mess with three competing currencies (two sets of legal tender Liberian dollar and one set of US Dollars bills) and out of control inflation that has forced government to unilaterally take 25% of remittances sent to families through Money Gram and Western Union and convert it to local currency.

While unfairly taking foreign currency away from citizens, government pays teachers and other employees in local Liberian currency but charges all taxes, duties and fees only in US Dollars. Application one page form for marriage license costs US75 plus additional US$75 marriage license fee (US$150) putting marriage, a basic human right out of the reach of most citizens for no justifiable reasons. The people are angry!

The current President of Liberia appoints all governors of all political subdivisions, cabinet ministers, heads of public corporations, board members of public corporations, supreme court justices, all traditional chiefs and all mayors of all cities across Liberia! Because of the paralyzing outcome of this ridiculously centralized system, corruption is endemic and Liberia is a time bomb! The Liberian president, a Nobel Laureate, comfortably, and with international praises welds more powers than President Obama, the Pope and Queen Elizabeth!

Without democracy, post-conflict countries often become magnets for terrorism. In Africa, war ravaged countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia look great on paper but they are real time bombs and tunnels to utter disaster waiting to happen. Meanwhile, western taxpayers dollars are being funneled through foreign aid to enrich the corrupt ruling elites in these eternally poor countries.

Isn't the time ripe for the world to open the floodgates of innovation in waging peace, promoting democracy and reinventing foreign aid by tapping into the potentials of resilient refugees in western nations?
There are millions of culturally competent former refugees in western nations who are yearning to return to their native post conflict countries! Investing in this hidden treasure and real 'peace corps' of refugees repatriated to their native countries to engage in the revitalization of the private sector is a timely and worthy social experiment.
The experiment of investing in refugee resettlement has proven to pay off in western nations where refugees resettle. According to Chmura Economics and Analytics, refugee service agencies in Cleveland, Ohio invested about 4.8 million dollars in refugee resettlement. In return, Cleveland netted a 48-million-dollar return from their investment as entrepreneurial refugees engaged in successful business ventures.

If investment in refugee resettlement pays off in America, why not conduct a similar social experiment in Africa , given the potential for world peace a positive result may yield?
The world is already making enormous investments with corrupt governments in post conflict African countries without engaging strategically with the refugee communities in western nations. For example, the United States gave Liberia US$247 million in 2012. With a GDP of US790 and the FY2016 budget of US550 million dollars, top Liberian politicians see foreign aid as a substitute for government's obligation to its citizens.

While foreign aid tackles development, the Liberian government use the national revenue not for basic services but for setting excessive salaries and benefits which range from US$193,416.00 yearly to US$482,203.00 just for lawmakers. Can you imagine the excessive salaries and benefits in the administration? Winning a nine-year term Liberian senate seat means US$4,339,827.00 investment in one person's salary with zero return on investment in one election cycle. Why are America and European Diplomats mute on such massive squandering of taxpayers money?
Compare the American taxpayers subsidized Liberian politician salaries and benefits to salaries of public servants in the USA, a country with a higher cost of living. With a US$3.65 Trillion Dollars budget in 2017, two year termed members of Congress make US$174,000 yearly.

At the state level, a US$40 billion dollars state budget, Massachusetts lawmakers earn about US$60,000.00 yearly while the Governor of Massachusetts earns US$150,800.00. The excessive salaries and benefits and endemic corruption perpetuates conflicts and exacerbates the global refugee crisis.
More talented, culturally competent, highly educated, skilled and motivated former refugees in western nations are eager to return to our native countries.

International partners must seize on this opportunity immediately because war ravaged countries like Liberia cannot indefinitely rely on their extractive economies or endless handouts in foreign aid from international partners.
Countries with or without large refugee communities such as Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the European Union and even the Trump Administration of the United States of America must seize the opportunity of returning refugees from the western countries. This solution is much cheaper than sending troops or peacekeeping missions in years to come when countries blow up! Doubtless, this initiative would bring economic growth, stability, democracy and self-reliance to aid dependent war ravaged countries that peacekeeping and foreign aid cannot achieve.

We use cookies to improve our website. By continuing to use this website, you are giving consent to cookies being used. More details…