The 2017 Presidential Speculations Where Should They Stand

Was again looking through my previous publications and treasure trove of things I've written over the past eight year. The following article was published sometime in mid 2012.

By Lamii Kpargoi

Unlike many parts of the world, where only known political quantities stand a good chance to win elective office following years of public scrutiny, in Liberia most people aspiring to public office run for the office regardless of the fact that they are virtually unknown even in their own little communities.

Such people even go to the extent of thinking that some accident might happen that would propel them to the presidency. As a result of this, some of them employ the help of marabous from Mali and other places in the sub-region to magically get them to the presidency. Others rely on Nigerian preacher men from the Christian faith to perform their magic. Yet still some of them rely on both Christian preachers and Islamic marabous.

But the reality of the situation is that neither the marabous, nor the preachers have any magical part to play in any electoral process. Elections almost always boil down to name recognition, though in more developed systems, policies take a center stage.

In the early to mid 1980s, the first attempt at introducing a real multiparty democratic system to Liberia was embarked upon by the military regime. After suspending the constitution in April 1980 and banning all political activities, the military step up a committee to draft a new constitution and presided over a 5-year transition process.

Unknown Quantities and the Quest for the Liberian Presidency

When the ban on politics was finally lifted in 1983/84, several individuals sprang up and put themselves forward to contest those pending elections. Names like Jackson Doe, Edward Kesseley, Gabriel Kpolleh, Baccus Matthews, etc were thrown around.

Though all these people were putting themselves forward for the presidency, it was clear to anyone watching, at the time that Baccus Matthews, Amos Sawyer and their other progressive colleagues were the most recognized and known characters in the country. Their socialist leanings were already very well known and they had led the agitation against to one party state.

If the military had not banned the UPP and LPP, while they were still being registered, one of those parties would have definitely produced the president in the 1985 elections. Because they were banned, the supporters of those parties did the next best thing in voting for the Liberia Action Party (LAP), not because they preferred LAP but because they wanted to put an end to military rule.

The military stole those elections because the people who voted for the perceived winners did not believe in LAP and were not prepared to put their lives on the line for that party. They were only trying to rid the country of the military government. That is why LAP could not use street demonstrations to kick the military out of power.

From 1985, it took another 11 years for Liberians to be allowed to vote again in July 1997. In the lead up to those elections which were meant to end the country’s civil war, 13 people registered to contest the presidency. While some of the big names from the 1985 elections finally figured, they performed dismally because their time had past and the population was looking in a single direction – towards eventual winner Charles Taylor.

Taylor’s electoral victory margin, unparalleled in Liberian history, might never again be matched. This victory was not due to him employing preachers or marabous, though I would argue that he did use spiritists from both religious groups.

Like the 1985 vote, the ballot was filled with the names of candidates who were unknown even in their own little communities. Like before, some of them were of the mistaken belief that magic was on their side.

Fast forward to 2005 and the same scenario played itself out with 22 candidates. As before the ballot got longer with meaningless names. The uncertainty of the political variables in 2005 perhaps contributed to this.

There was no clear front-runner going in to the 2005 elections. Cllr. Charles Brumskine had been the only meaningful contender against Charles Taylor if elections had been held as scheduled in October 2003. Cllr. Brumskine lost his front-runner status when he decided to hibernate for a year of the 2003 – 2005 transitional government.

As the elections got closer, everyone knew that only one of three people stood a viable chance of winning: Charles Brumskine, Opong Weah and Ellen Sirleaf, but yet there were 19 others that still entered the race.

The scenario is not much different for the 2011 elections, though the length of the ballot, which had consistently grown since 1985 finally experienced a drop as only 14 people put themselves forward. As before, no more than four of these stood any realistic chance of winning, though this time round there was a front-runner in the incumbent followed closely by Opong Weah.

The 2017 Possibilities

In recent months, there have been a lot of speculations about succession to the Liberian presidency. Like before names have been bounded around. In two speculative pieces written by Front Page Africa editor, Rodney Sieh, he names Vice President Joseph Boakai, Augustine Ngafuan, Brownie Samukai, Mills Jones, Varney Sherman, Amara Konneh, Koffi Woods, etc as people who might play their hands in 2017.

With the exception of VP Boakai, Cllr. Sherman and Atty. Woods, the rest of the individuals listed range from the totally unknown to the relatively unknown. Again, of all of them, it is only VP Boakai, Cllr. Sherman and Atty. Woods who are known when it comes to serious policy issues like rule of law, economics, etc. These are known of Sherman because he contested for the presidency before, while Woods’ advocacy for good governance and rule of law is very well known in the country. On the part of VP Boakai, he has won two elections as vice president over the last 7 years.

Further, it is only VP Boakai and Cllr. Sherman that have any meaningful political constituencies. The vice president’s constituency cuts across Lofa County which has a significant voting population, while Sherman’s is in Grand Cape Mount and perhaps Bomi countries and not as vote rich.

Liberia has seriously moved on from the era where someone will put his or her hand up for the presidency simply because he’s a government official, “rich” or loves the country. While these are all good attributes, they are generally meaningless as they fail to tell the population how the person intends to alleviate their sufferings.

Being a government official, “rich” or having a Liberian flag and map in one’s blood stream will in no way make the country’s health care delivery system better. Those attributes won’t provide better standards in the education sector. They certainly will not bring someone justice when their rights are trampled upon. And they would most definitely not put money in the pockets of the hundreds of thousands of Liberians that live in squalor.

In order for someone to become president, that person must start telling the Liberian people where they stand on crucial issues that affect the lives of the population. They must have views on not just the improvement of basic social services, but where they stand on using those services: whether they would send their children to private schools or go abroad for medical treatment/checkup.

They must show the population their plans for making Liberians have a future that does not basically concern their next meal.

Those are the major issues facing Liberia going forward and this author intends to microscope all serious presidential possibilities over the next several years. Each person will be assessed mainly on policy issues and their prescription for improving the Liberian state and people.

Democratic Transition or Political Charade: Looking at Liberia 60 Years Ago

Was looking through my previous publications and came across a treasure trove of things I've written over the past eight year. Surprisingly, I've for some strange reasons not published any of these here. The following article was published in February 2012.

Democratic Transition or Political Charade: Looking at Liberia 60 Years Ago

By: Lamii Kpargoi

Pre. Ellen Sirleaf

Statement:

“We observe today, for the first time in two generations, the swearing in of a second successive democratic government elected peacefully by the will of the Liberian people.” President Ellen Sirleaf made this statement in her January 16, 2012 inaugural address.

Determination: Misleading

Analysis:

Liberia as a nation was founded in 1822 with the arrival of repatriated freed people of color from the United States of America. The group made an encampment on Providence Island from where the country was started.

Twenty five years later, the founders of Liberia declared independence on July 26, 1847. The first president “elected” was Joseph Jenkins Roberts a person with mixed black and white heritage from Virginia, USA.

Whatever election was held to bring Roberts to power was restricted to the couple of thousand settlers that were deemed as official citizens of the country at the time.

After Roberts there were several and regular changes of presidents until 1944 when President William V. S. Tubman became president on the ticket of the True Whig Party (TWP) which had been formed about seven decades earlier.

Between 1878 and 1980 the TWP had a virtual strangle hold on Liberian politics. Political opposition was not allowed and elections were generally restricted to members of the party. Between 1944, when Tubman came to power, and 1971 when he died awaiting inauguration, Liberia knew no other leader.

In her reference to smooth political transition in Liberia, President Sirleaf’s inaugural statement used a yardstick of two generations. Dictionary.com defines a generation as “The average period, generally considered to be about thirty years, during which children grow up and have children of their own.”

Doing a little back calculation, based on 60 years, one would arrive roughly at 1952. Then the question arises whether there was a change of government or inauguration of a new government in that year. As far as historic research has determined, Pres. Tubman’s first term, which started in 1944 expired that year.

A further question is thus triggered on whether Tubman’s second inauguration which happened around 1953 can be classified as a democratic transition that followed an election that expressed the will of the Liberian people.

This determination is crucial to deciding the accuracy of President Sirleaf’s claim in her inaugural address. The TWP under Tubman allowed little or no political disagreement. He crushed every attempt at forming a credible opposition against him, exiling people and even murdering some.

While there were moves to open up the political space to a multiparty system in the late 1970s, no opposition political party, under a genuine multiparty system, was officially registered in Liberia till 1984/1985.

The first ever democratic elections held in Liberia were conducted in 1985. The democratic will that came out of those elections were not realized because the military stole the people’s mandate.

The 1997 election that brought President Charles Taylor to power was the second democratic elections held in this country’s history albeit under special circumstances.

The elections of 2005 were the third democratic elections ever held in Liberia. Those elections were also the first that weren’t largely influence by extenuating circumstances. It involved several candidates and parties and everyone had the right to campaign anywhere in the country.

For this fact check, the president’s newly named press secretary, Mr. Jerolimick Piah, was contacted via his Facebook email, but he elected to ignore request for explanation. A subsequent email was sent to Ms. Shirely Brownell of the president’s office, to which Mr. Cosme Pulano sent the following response:

“A generation is anytime between 18 to 30 years. Going back from today, two generations takes us to the 1955 and 1959 general elections.

“In May 1955, for the first time since 1931, there were three candidates during the presidential election. Those candidates were William V. S. Tubman, True Whig Party; Edwin Barclay, Reformation Party; and William O. Davies-Bright, independent candidate. Tubman was elected President. In May 1959, he was re-elected in a contest between the True Whig Party and an Independent candidate. That election witnessed the swearing in of the first successive democratic government elected peacefully by the will of the Liberian people.

“As such, President Sirleaf’s statement, in her Inaugural Address: “We observe today, for the first time in two generations, the swearing in of a second successive democratic government elected peacefully by the will of the Liberian people," is absolutely correct.”

In contrast to the response from President Sirleaf’s office, Dr. Joseph Saye Guannu, on page 13 of his book “Liberian History Since 1980”, emphatically states that, “The election of 1985 was the first multiparty election in Liberian history. More than three political parties contested.”

A research of President Sirleaf’s previous speeches also unearths an interesting angle. During her first state of the nation address in January 2006, she acknowledged that her election in 2005 was the first ever democratic elections in the country. She said at the time, “I want to report to you that the state of our nation is fair and hopeful, for several reasons: We participated in a relatively peaceful legislative and presidential election campaign. We voted in an internationally judged free, fair, peaceful, and democratic [election] ever in the history of our country.”

With the 2011 elections passing off smoothly, the inauguration of January 16, 2012 was the first time in Liberia’s history where there was a transition from one democratically elected government to another.

From our yardstick for fact check determination, we’ve graded the president’s statement misleading as she most likely innocently made the error and also because she doesn’t seem to get any political mileage out of this statement.

The fact is that the 2011/2012 transition, recently experienced in Liberia marks the first time in the country’s history where one democratically elected government has turned over to another.

If you don’t agree with the misleading determination stated here of the president’s remark, you’re welcome to submit your opposition to this blog.

LEARNING FROM THE EBOLA CRISIS

By Charles W. Brumskine

I would like to commend Hon. Tolbert Nyenswah, Assistant Health Minister for Preventive Services at the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, for the professional manner in which he has served the nation during this Ebola virus crisis. And I concur with his statement of Monday, November 3, 2014, warning Liberians against complacency, which could have the propensity to overturn the apparent gain in the nation’s fight against the Ebola virus disease. Learning from the health crisis over the last eight months in particular, and the last eight years in general, the Government should begin a public health campaign in earnest, to save the people from the reemergence of the spread of the deadly Ebola virus and other infectious diseases.

At this point in the Ebola crisis it might be a good time to do some reflection in an effort to draw lessons for the future. Why, for example, have more than 2,500 (official statistics) of our loved ones, relatives, and friends died from the Ebola virus disease in Liberia, while only nine died in Nigeria and one in Senegal? Liberia has a population of about 4 million; Nigeria’s population is about 174 million, while Senegal’s is about 14 million. Notwithstanding, about 57% of all the Ebola virus-related deaths from the current outbreak are in Liberia. On August 14, 2014, Blair Glencorse and Brooks Harmon wrote that the “… Ebola outbreak isn't just a health care problem. It's also about a crisis of governance.” Their article, “The Cure for Ebola Is Accountability,” further stated that, “There is a clear link between this governance failure and the current health crisis. In places where governments are so rarely willing or able to act in the interests of their citizens, we can begin to understand why the disease continues to spread.”

Today, no country wants to see a Liberian passport holder or an entry stamp from Liberia in any passport coming through their airports. Politicians around the world want to ban all travel to our homeland and quarantine anyone who would dare travel from Liberia, because we are all supposedly infected with the deadly Ebola virus disease.

Why is Liberia’s Ebola virus-related death to population ratio so high? Was it because of the condition of Liberia’s healthcare system prior to the Ebola outbreak? Was it because the Government made no attempt initially to contain the virus? Was the Government’s Ebola control message wrong and too late, or was it simply a matter of the people’s lack of trust in the Government? Was it because of our cultural practices? Or, was it because the Government was waiting for the international community to step in to help, providing some of the basic services that the Government should have been in the position to make available to its people at the onset of the outbreak?

An easy and less controversial response to such questions could be, “All of the above.” But whether or not one assigns a specific reason for what has obtained in Liberia since March, when Liberia experienced that first case of Ebola, the bottom line is that the loss of lives, pain, and suffering that the mishandling of the Ebola crisis has caused the people is the result of a colossal failure of leadership. The impact on our country of the mismanagement of the Ebola virus outbreak — on the economy, set back in the health sector, and the loss of class room hours for yet another generation of young Liberians, just to mention a few, are yet to be determined.

But while it may be too late to pontificate on what President Sirleaf and her government could and should have done, it is not too early to consider how to prevent Ebola from becoming endemic or how we might prevent the spread of other deadly diseases that might arise in the future. A good place to begin is for the Liberian Government to now catalogue lessons to be learned from this Ebola national nightmare.  So, what can the Government learn?  Here are a few areas for consideration:

Broader Definition of Health. First, Liberia must embrace a broader definition of health. Government programs must focus on the true causes of ill health such as poverty, poor nutrition, inadequate housing, and unsafe drinking water, among other things. This approach to health results in global as well as individual outcomes.

Before the Ebola virus outbreak, about 43 percent of mortality in Liberia was attributable to malaria, typhoid, and dysentery, which are easily preventable and/or treatable for pennies on the dollar. Preventive health measures, safe drinking water, and improved sanitation are less costly and more effective measures for maintaining a safe and healthy population than their curative counterparts.  Furthermore, instead of waiting for handouts from our friends in the international community, the Government should place emphasis on improving preventive measures as well as educating the people through the community health posts about preventive measures that they can take.

The Government can also learn the true meaning of the rule of law. While avoiding illegal arrests, detentions, and floggings are a part of the lessons to be learned, the Public Health Law of Liberia has ample provisions relating to public health emergencies. The Public Health Law mandates that whenever any part of the Republic appears to be threatened by any formidable epidemic, endemic or communicable disease, the Minister of Health should declare such part an infected area and should make rules to safeguard the public health, which may include preventing any person from leaving and re-entering infected areas. And any person who has been exposed to the infection of and may be in the incubation stage of any communicable disease, and is not being accommodated in a manner to adequately guard against the spread of the disease, that person may be removed to a place of isolation and there detained until s/he is free from infection or able to be discharged without danger to the public health. But the Government decided to ignore the law, and sat around helplessly until the deadly virus had spread throughout the nation. When the Government declared its State of Emergency, five months after the first Ebola virus case, many had already died, and the disease was widespread.

Plan to Delegate. Next, the Government should also learn from this terrible period of our national life to delegate the responsibility for health and sanitation service delivery to local government, requiring the state to build capacity at county and district levels, and to allocate more resources to this purpose. The current “decentralization strategy” of the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare is merely an outplacement of service, because the Minister retains control of every local activity. 

If the resources cannot be generated domestically or mobilized to rehabilitate and upgrade community health posts, the Government should invest in mobile clinics—purchase vans or twin-cab pickups, equip each with medical equipment, and staff each with a physician assistant, a nurse and a lab technician. The mobile clinics will be charged with providing public health education about Ebola, HIV/AIDS and other diseases, and basic medical care to combat curable ailments such as malaria, diarrhea diseases; dressings for wounds, monitoring rural pregnant women and young children for anemia, performing antenatal examinations, monitoring and referral of pregnant women with antenatal problems, and providing basic health, sanitation and nutrition education.

Of course, Liberia needs to train more health workers and pay better salaries and benefits in order to retain healthcare professionals and to attract others to the profession. On health and social welfare, prior to the Ebola outbreak, the Government spent approximately $15.10, per annum, for each Liberian (per capita). Of the $55.9 million proposed for the health sector in the 2012/2013 budget, more than half--$29.3 million or 52% went to staff salaries, fuel, vehicles, and general and special allowances. While the nation begs for help, the Government has spent about US$64 million for foreign travel and reimbursements since 2006.

Better allocation and proper management of public funds would allow increase spending on health, education, and social development services, infrastructure and basic services for the Liberian people. More efficient use of the existing and increased allocation of public funds will reduce the overall disease burden, allowing healthy families to spend more time at school and/or doing what they need to do to survive. Certainly, the use of resources in a transparent and accountable manner would have prevented the rapid spread of the Ebola virus disease.

Government blames the Civil War that ended eleven years ago for Liberia not having gloves, surgical masks, gowns, and other personal protection equipment in the hospitals, which has resulted in the death of doctors, nurses, and other health workers, who attended patients with the Ebola virus disease. The Civil War is blamed for Liberia having one doctor for about every 86,275 persons in the country. The Civil War is blamed for fourteen of Liberia’s fifteen counties not having an ambulance that would have safely transported Ebola infected patients. But the Civil War can no more be blamed for Liberia’s current woes, than the fall of Adam and Eve can be blamed for the Civil War. Neither can be said to be the proximate cause of the other; the intervening and superseding circumstances are evident.

Develop Robust Disease Surveillance System. Finally, the Liberian Government should recognize the critical need for a more robust disease surveillance system and empower the County Health Teams (CHT) and Community Health Workers (CHW) to be effective first responders. Any future disease outbreak, and there might be others, can then be locally managed with support from central government to ensure it does not become as widespread as the Ebola contagion. 

Liberia has many national problems begging for solution, but from the perspective of national leadership, here are three common postures:

1. Firstly, our national leaders live in a state of perpetual denial;
2. Secondly, our national leaders have adopted the posture that admitting missteps is a sign of weakness; and,
3. Thirdly, every utterance that is in opposition to a Government’s policy or action is viewed as either partisan or an outright unpatriotic betrayal of the state—in the mind of those holding government positions or otherwise benefiting from unholy grafts, there is nothing nationalistic or patriotic about an opposing point of view. The preference for a common position, “so says one, so says all,” obviates the need for tolerance of alternative views!

As a result, democracy continues to elude Liberia, as our nation stumbles through recurrent crises; we move from one botched opportunity to another, awaiting the next crisis.

The Government has learned not to be proactive; its modus operandi is to expect and await assistance from and depend on the benevolence of the international community. And when the assistance of the international community is forthcoming, the Government does not seem to have a national agenda. And Liberia’s national leaders rarely take responsibility for their actions or the lack thereof.  Malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance may abound, but how often do our national leaders stop to say, “I am sorry” or at least, “I regret the mishaps”? Instead, it is always someone else’s fault. Would someone be sanctioned for the terrible handling of the Ebola virus crisis? Most likely not!

But instead of using the Civil War, anything it can imagine, and everyone else, as an excuse for its non-performance, the Government could learn a lesson or two from Paul Kagame and the Rwanda recovery story. Of course, it is all about national leadership with a vision for the country, and a passion for improving the lives of the Liberian people!

VESTED INTERESTS PUSHING AMAZONIAN HIGHWAY BILL

Plans to build a 270 km highway through the Peruvian Amazon are mired in legal violations and potential conflicts of interest, said Global Witness in a new report today.

The Purús highway bill, currently being considered by Peru’s Congress, proposes a new road between Puerto Esperanza (Ucayali) and Iñapari (Madre de Dios) in the Amazon rainforest. This pristine wilderness harbors the richest stands of mahogany left in Peru,  and is home to some of the few remaining indigenous groups living in ‘voluntary isolation’.

If approved, the new highway would have devastating impacts on the environment and indigenous communities in the area, violating laws on protected areas, the consultation rights of indigenous peoples and protections for ‘uncontacted’ indigenous groups. The Transport Committee, which is charged with making recommendations to Congress, however, has failed to highlight any of these concerns in its official deliberations.

“It is crucial that investment comes to the isolated Purús region to improve services for the population, but there are important questions to be answered over who this project would actually benefit. The huge social and environmental costs that would result from this new highway have not been properly assessed and Congress should vote it down,” said Billy Kyte, campaigner at Global Witness.

Global Witness’ investigation suggests that access to valuable commodities such as timber and gold, which the highway would provide, may be one of the driving factors behind the bill’s support:

Local officials previously drew up an illegal contract with logging company Agro Industrial SAC granting logging rights along the road in return for its construction. Priest Miguel Piovesan, a key promoter of the highway locally, led the negotiations over the deal that was never signed in full.

Congressman Carlos Tubino, the bill’s main sponsor, was Political Military Head of Ucayali at a time when illegal timber from Purús was openly transported using military planes.

Congressman Francisco Ccama, another key supporter, has extensive gold mining interests and potentially stands to benefit through the opening up of new gold reserves.

“There are so many concerns with this proposal, it’s worrying that things have even got this far. Some of the most vocal supporters of this project have links to timber and gold interests, two commodities sure to be extracted from the area via any new highway. Such voices are dominating the debate while calls from Peru’s National Ministries and indigenous organisations to reject the bill are being ignored.” said Kyte.

The report also documents bribery and other crimes at the local level associated with the highway plans: 

Forest is being illegally cleared along the route of the proposed highway, using funds provided by the local municipality in Purús.

The Purús municipality has been accused of fraudulently obtaining the signatures of indigenous peoples to falsely claim indigenous peoples’ support for the highway.

One indigenous leader was offered a bribe of 30,000 Soles (around US$10,000) to gain the support of indigenous groups for the road project.

Global Witness is calling for the bill to be suspended, pending a full investigation into evidence of legal violations, and potential conflicts of interest.

“Peru’s Congress should suspend the bill. A parliamentary investigative committee needs to urgently look into these allegations whilst the bill’s implications are properly examined”, said Kyte.

New Audit Reveals Liberia Systematically Breaking Its Own Laws in Multi-National Deals Worth Billions

Global Witness welcomes a new audit recommending that the Liberian government take immediate action to address systematic gaps in compliance with laws on how its natural resources are allocated. The report, commissioned by LEITI, Liberia’s groundbreaking transparency initiative, revealed that laws had been broken in virtually every natural resource deal since 2009.

The findings, leaked to the press earlier this week, paint a picture of a country routinely ignoring its own laws in a rush to hand out natural resources to all comers. The audit also underlines the importance of independent oversight of how natural resources deals are made. Global Witness urges the Liberian government to quickly finalize and publish the report and take strong action to fully address its recommendations.

“If the Liberian government is serious about turning the page on the past and using natural resources to improve the lives of its citizens rather than enrich the corrupt, enforcing laws and prosecuting government officials and companies who violate them should be its number one priority; this could make or break the country's future.” said Jon Gant of Global Witness. “The sad truth is that the Liberian government has consistently failed to do this.”

The draft LEITI findings indicate that non-compliance with laws governing how natural resources are allocated is widespread and a problem across all natural resources sectors, including oil, mining, large agricultural concessions and forestry.

Global Witness and Liberian civil society have documented systemic legal violations in the timber sector since the lifting of UNSC timber sanctions in 2006, which was a particular focus of international reform efforts since the end of the country’s timber and diamond fuelled war in 2003.  The promised jobs and tax revenues from the sector have failed to materialize, while nearly half the countries forests have been allocated through illegal and fraudulent deals since 2010. Despite swift and strong commitments from the President to clean up the sector, the government has been slow to act.

Across sectors, the government has so far failed to hold corrupt or negligent officials, politicians and companies accountable, thus undermining its own laws governing natural resource use. The LEITI report reveals the full scope of the problem.

At a meeting of the LEITI Board last week, Global Witness and other stakeholders received an embargoed version of the draft findings of the LEITI audit, which has since been leaked to the press. The findings will be reviewed by the government and LEITI’s multi-stakeholder oversight body before official publication.

The mandate of the LEITI to publish contracts and review how they are allocated goes beyond that of its international parent initiative, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative or EITI, which requires publication of government revenues from extractive industries. The new findings demonstrate the importance of independent oversight of the process by which natural resource contracts are allocated.

GOVERNMENT AND UN LAUNCH $36.7 MILLION JOINT HUMANITARIAN APPEAL FOR LIBERIA    

Monrovia, 19 February 2013 - The Government of Liberia and the United Nations appealed for nearly US$ 37 million today to meet the pressing humanitarian needs of Liberia’s most vulnerable communities during 2013. The UN “Critical Humanitarian Gaps (CHG) 2013 humanitarian response plan” aims to provide vital humanitarian assistance to over half a million people at risk, including nearly 117,000 children.

Liberia continues to face significant humanitarian challenges. Nearly half of Liberia’s population lives in extreme poverty surviving on less than US$ 1 per day.  More than 64,000 Ivorian refugees remain in Liberia since post-election violence in Côte d’Ivoire forced them to flee and 25,000 former Liberian refugees who returned home last year continue to need essential humanitarian assistance.

The UN Humanitarian and Resident Coordinator for Liberia and Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr Aeneas C. Chuma, said: “We call on donors to support the humanitarian appeal we are launching today. We need nearly US$ 37 million to provide vital water, nutrition, food security and healthcare services to families at risk. Without much needed donor assistance Liberia’s most vulnerable communities will suffer. If donors act now we will be able to reach those communities who need our help the most.”

The UN CHG 2013 plan focuses primarily on the four-refugee hosting counties in Southeastern Liberia; Nimba, Grand Gedeh, Maryland, and River Gee. Bomi, Grand Kru and Montserado counties will also be a focus for UN assistance under the plan launched today given their poor emergency indicators for food security, water, sanitation and hygiene services.

The CHG 2013 is a humanitarian transition planning tool which aims to consolidate and sustain humanitarian investments made during the emergency phase of the humanitarian crisis brought about by the massive influx of Ivorian refugees in 2010/2011. It aims to address pressing needs of Ivorian refugees and their Liberian hosts in communities in the four-border counties with Côte d’Ivoire, those vulnerable in communities with poor emergency indicators, as well as help repatriate and reintegrate back into Liberian society. As an appeal instrument, the CHG aims to coordinate efforts of participating agencies to appeal for funds cohesively, not competitively.

The 2013 Liberia CHG was prompted by persistent vulnerabilities affecting Liberians and Ivorian refugees in communities as a result of a 62% funding shortfall in the Liberia 2012 Consolidated Appeal (CAP). Acknowledging the development setting under which this particular humanitarian programming is taking place, the CHG participating agencies decided to use Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) standard emergency indicators to prioritize needs and intervention zones.

Freedom of Information Act and Executive Order 38: Issues Emerging from Disclosure Perspective

Freedom of Information Act and Executive Order 38: Issues Emerging from Disclosure Perspective

Presentation at the Liberia Media Center’s Quarterly Editors and Owners Forum

By Lamii Kpargoi

In recent weeks the rumor mill in Liberia, especially Monrovia has been rife with all sorts of information. While some of them have a semblance of true, others are clear lies, which are basically meant to confuse the population or to serve as propaganda to change the direction of ongoing debates. Regardless of the motives of such information, they serve no useful purpose if they are meant to do the latter.

A few weeks ago, I was privileged to be in the audience when Cllr. Tiawan Gongloe painted a very clear picture of the harm that can be caused by the failure of government to provide clear and unambiguous information to the public.

As Cllr. Gongloe noted in his key note address on the International Right to Know Day, this failure on the part of the William R. Tolbert government to provide clear information even though there were dangerous rumors making the rounds in Monrovia in April 1980, led to its overthrow.

We would never know with utmost certainty whether a different tactic on the information front would have averted the bloody military coup of April 1980. Though the jury is still out on that one, we will agree with the learned legal luminary that the soldiers intervened because they felt that their kinsmen were in mortal danger.

At the time of the 1980 coup, there was no freedom of information law and government was basically seen as the preserve of a small group of people who jealously guarded their right to remain in charge not by providing clear information to the population but with the use of strong armed tactics.

Liberia has come full circle. Though we now have a very progressive freedom of information law, the culture of having a closed government is still very evident.

Today, hardly anyone runs the risk of physical harm for holding contrary opinions to those in power, though there is a worrying menace of legitimate debates being drown out with the use of purchased opinions. These opinions most often emanate from belly-driven young men and women who cloud the public discourse with spurious information, most times not germane to the actual issue of contention. This has to stop as in the long run it can only harm this country!

The reason for this is resource competition and the desire of some people who control them to jealously guard information they possess regarding national resources. The view of such people is often than not that the general population is not sophisticated enough to properly handle information regarding the distribution and consumption of the national pie.

Such a view point is far removed from the reality. Today the trend in governance around the world is no longer tilted towards what is depicted in George Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984 novels. It is towards participatory governance and openness.

It was the desire to have open and participatory government that led to the Liberian legislature passing into law the country’s freedom of information law in September 2010. It was also a desire to promote this virtue that President Sirleaf did not hesitate in promptly signing the act in to law on September 16, 2010 at 3:30pm.

The president’s promptness in signing on to the FOI law was because she recognized its positive contribution to making her government better. She knew that FOI is key in ensuring that while the governors are governing, the citizens will be watching and asking the critical questions regarding what is being done; who is doing it; how it is being done; where it is being done; how much it costs; and crucially why it was not done or completed.

Because of the president’s clear cut commitment shown with her swift signing of the FOI law, we were bemused with her inclusion of a “disclosure of information and release of classified materials” provision in Executive Order # 38 in the quest to laudably “establish an administrative code of conduct for members of the executive branch of government.”

Some have argued that Part VI of Order 38 is not contrary to the FOI law using the primacy of law argument. While it might be clear to any legal mind that a statute is higher than an executive order, the question that follows is which of the laws would a member of the executive branch of government prefer to violate: the FOI law or Order 38? Which is more likely to get them fired?

Section 1.7 of the FOI law is quite emphatic in laying this issue to rest. The section states that “Save for the Constitution, this act is and shall be the primary law governing the right of access to information, including all matters related to request for and provision of information in Liberia. No administrative action, order or regulation contrary to, inconsistent with, or in derogation of this Act shall issue or be effective in Liberia (emphasis added), and this Act shall prevail over any and all subsequent inconsistent statutes, except a subsequent statute that specifically amends or repeals it.”

But in the real world, especially in a county like ours, which does not have a settled governance culture, this counts for nothing. The fact that there already existed a legal framework that addresses information dissemination issues in the country, it was best to avoid sending conflicting signals to government functionaries by leaving out Part VI and sub-part 10.3 of the order.

What useful purpose does it serve to include within the order provisions that appear to detract from the FOI law? Was the FOI law not adequate enough to satisfy the disclosure of information regime Executive Order # 38 sought to achieve? We do not think so.

Analysis of the Access to Information Provisions of Executive Order #38

There are several provisions of Executive Order # 38 that tend to either contradict or confuse the intent of the FOI law and even to some extent the order itself. It is worth noting that the spirit and intent of the order, from the plain letter of the law contained in the document, is to establish a code of conduct for members of the Executive Branch of government. One would assume that this would contribute rather than take away from the government’s stated policies elsewhere of transparency and openness in its affairs. But when the information disclosure provisions of the order are traversed, a picture of a move towards secrecy emerges in a pronounced way.

Part VI of the Executive Order is titled “Disclosure of Information and Release of Classified Materials”.  Interestingly, neither this nor sub-part 1.2 defines what falls under the ambit of classified materials. The entire Part VI of the order, which is subdivided into nine sub-parts generally, requires public servants to take on a mantle of total secrecy, something that is totally contrary to the stated principles in the FOI law.

Executive Order # 38 nebulously speak about confidentiality of information in sub-part 6.1: “A public servant shall use sensitive and confidential information that is in their possession or likely to come into her/his possession only in the performance of her/his official duties or responsibilities except where such information is criminal in nature or against public policy. A public servant shall be prudent in discussing sensitive information with any other public servant or others who are not directly concerned with the matter in hand.”

Who defines what constitutes confidential information? Is there a set procedure for declaring something confidential? The FOI law is clear on the issue of confidentiality and exemptions stating, “Exemption must be justified; not merely Claimed: A public authority or private entity may not refuse access to or disclosure of information simply by claiming it as “confidential or secret.”

In relevant sections, sub-part 6.2 of the Executive Order states: “Non-permissible Use of Information: A public servant shall not use information in the course of her/his official duties:

C. To gain improper advantage for himself or herself or for any other person.

In defining improper advantage, the provision goes on to state in relevant parts that:

b. Exchanging confidential information with people from other organizations.

d. Providing information from official records to any unauthorized person.

This provision is troublesome for several reasons not least among them being the continuous use of the word confidential as in other provisions of Part VI. Why doesn’t the government want its functionaries exchanging information with people from other organizations, like civil society? The freedom of information law allows anyone walking off the street to request information of public functionaries. With provision “d” it is clear that the executive order doesn’t want any ordinary person accessing information as someone walking off the street would most likely fall within the “unauthorized” category of people.

Sub-part 6.3 titled “Safeguarding Official Information” of the executive order states that “A public servant shall maintain a high level of confidentiality regarding communication of official information in accordance with government’s policy, the Rules and Procedures of the Civil Service or any law.”

Why does the government not want its officials communicating official information about its policies, procedures and laws? Sub-part 6.4b (Use/release for official purposes only) of the order states that “A public servant shall not use or communicate official information other than for official purposes except where such information has already been made available officially to the public…”

While the FOI has made provisions for an information officer in each organization that falls under the act in order to channel requests for information through a central source, the executive order discourages the release of information in sub-part 6.6. This part of the order states that “A public servant shall only disclose official information or release documents acquired in the course of employment when required by law to do so (emphasis added), it is inherent in the nature of the position, when called to give evidence in court, or when proper authority has been given. In all such cases, said disclosure shall be confined to only factual information (emphasis added).”

The FOI law already requires information to be released, why include this provision? What is the yardstick for determining whether a document speaks to only facts or there are speculations included?

This provision of the order brings in new variables to the information disclosure and management regime that were never included by the legislature when the FOI law was debated and voted into law. What is more worrying is that the presidency is attempting to render the FOI law irrelevant through an irregular process when the opportunity existed two years ago to veto the law.

Sub-part 6.6 of the order leaves a lot of issues solely to the discretion of state officials who tend to generally hold unto information than abide by the public’s right to be informed.

For its part the FOI law does not allow this latitude of discretion. Section 2.1 of the law is emphatic that “Every public authority or body shall establish, maintain, and regularly update a widely accessible and user-friendly publication scheme whereby the public authority or public body automatically provides detailed information regarding its core functions, nature of its activities and operations, and the information it possesses.”

These provisions of the order present an interesting conundrum when juxtaposed with the FOI’s provisions on exempt information. While the executive order seems to suggest that anything can be deemed as sensitive, or classified, the FOI has a limited number of things that it designates as exempt. Even for the category of exempt document/information under the FOI, the determination to provide the information is not left to the discretion of a public official; it is ultimately a judicial process that determines whether the information is exempt.

Finally ladies and gentlemen, let us draw your attention to an asset declaration provision of Order 38. In our view, this is one of the major reasons behind the crafting of the order, but as we’ve seen throughout Part VI, the Executive has once more brought in access to information restrictions.

In relevant parts, the Executive has ones more relied on the undefined parameters of confidentiality and classification to render the FOI law irrelevant here. I quote Sub-part 10.3 “Confidentiality of Declaration: The LACC shall treat each declaration as classified information and as such only authorized personnel of the commission shall have access to the contents of the declaration....”

Section 4.8 of the FOI clearly states that “Exemption must be justified; not merely claimed: A public authority or private entity may not refuse access to or disclosure of information simply by claiming it as confidential or secret”.

But interestingly sub-part 10.3 seems to contradict the “when required by law to do so” provision contained in sub-part 6.6 of the order. The FOI law already requires public functionaries to disclosed information unless they fall within one of the predefined exemptions.

The controlling question here to justify exemption, is whether the information contained in the asset declaration documents in anyway fall within the narrow exemptions allowed under the freedom of information law? Are they of national defense or international relations significance? Are they trade secrets? Are they part of an ongoing criminal investigation? Are they personal, private records?

The answers to these questions can be clearly found in the FOI regime. Instead of the Executive including a provision in Order 38 which tends to undermine the existing frame work around this issue, it should have left this issue to be governed by the FOI statute.

Executive Order #38’s information disclosure provisions are greatly peppered with direct and indirect provisions that undermine the government’s stated desire to run an open and transparent regime and in the process build the confidence of the Liberian people in the workings of the state. In the face of the FOI law, Executive Order # 38 runs totally contrary to the Government’s stated pledge to abide by the right to information as spelled out in the Constitution of Liberia and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.