Voice of Liberia

J. YANQUI ZAZA | January 29, 2010

Before addressing our topic “After 4 yrs plus $1 billion, Liberia is replete with scary signs of failure,” let us revisit the issue of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s business interest and “conflict of interest.” President Sirleaf’s supporters continue to say that Sirleaf having a business interest is not a crime as long as those who are crying foul do not provide evidence of a crime. Such a view does not meet the test of common sense. However, if Sirleaf and supporters have any doubt that the President’s business interest does create conflict of interest, let them review why U.S. officials are required to disclose their business interest once they are offered position in government.  A case in point is the Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg. He did not allow his company to do business with New York City, according to one poster on the web site of the Liberian Forum. Also, former vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney did rescue himself from the activities of his business (i.e., Halliburton) when he accepted the offer to become the U. S. vice president.

Another group of Sirleaf’s supporters says that there is no hard evidence of Sirleaf owning business interest. Hard evidence? Are Steve Cashin, Clavendar Bright Parker, and Estrada Bernard not operating the different businesses? All of these business partners became big business persons in Liberia once Madam Sirleaf ascended to the presidency. Cashin became an owner of this profitable bank only when Sirleaf became president of Liberia. Clavenda Bright Parker became part owner of ECOBANK and International Bank only when Sirleaf became president of Liberia. Also, Estrada Bernard, a brother in-law to Sirleaf, became a big time businessman only when Sirleaf became president of Liberia. The Dunn report stated that Bernard got $600,000 for providing legal advice for cellcom. When did her brother in-law establish his legal practice or professional consultancy?

Let us come back to our topic.  As President is unable to deal with the conflict of interest and corruption problems that involve her children, her sister and brother-in-law and her friends, there are serious and alarming signs that she is unable to establish herself as the final executive authority in Liberia or to help reconcile the people of Liberia.  Four articles published in local newspapers and websites over the last three weeks exposed the inability of the president to deal with serious problems and to ensure that people high up in government are ready for reconciliation. The four articles were; the response of Dr. Richard Tolbert to Frontpage Africa’s question to him about declaring his assets; the continuing protest by the widows of ex-soldiers; the reaction of some women to the auditing of the Ministry of Gender and Development; and the report of ritualistic killings in Cape Palmas, Maryland County.

The first story about Dr. Richard Tolbert’s reaction to the demand for assets declaration shows that there are still strong hatred and bitterness in the hearts of the Americo-Liberians she has brought to senior positions of government. Richard Tolbert’s reaction shows that these people are not yet ready for peace. The last three stories show that President Sirleaf has not established her authority over executive matters. 

 It would appear that Frontpage Africa was trying to find out whether members of the cabinet were prepared to respond to the President’s instruction to declare assets. The contrast between the response of Dr. Walter Gwenigale and Dr. Richard Tolbert was shocking and revealing. Gwenigale did not take offense to the question. He explained that the President had given him some allowances, which he had applied to establishing and improving a farm. The implication is that if questions are raised about his farm, there was an answer that shows accountability. Apparently, when Tolbert was asked the same question, he flew off like a mad man full of arrogance and rage. As if to say, how dare you ask me, Dr. Richard Tolbert, such a question? He referred to what he called “idiots” who “killed my father in cold blood,” and confiscated his father’s “hard earned savings of $650,000” which was in the International Trust Company that is now taken over by Cashin, Atta, Bernard, Sirleaf, etc as the International Bank. How he had to get a loan of 50,000 from “the same bank” to build or renovate a house. He seemed to have ended his answer to the question with the comment, “I hope this satisfies your morbid curiosity,” he said to the journalist. Richard Tolbert is still angry and bitter man. He is in need of healing. It is scary that Madam Sirleaf has left this man in charge of National Investment Commission to serve all Liberians, including those he might think of as “idiots” who he might hold responsible for killing or being associated with the killing of his father.

 As a son, Richard Tolbert holds the memory of his father precious care. Nobody can blame him for that, but many other people have a different memory of Senator Frank E. Tolbert. He was the man who did not let common people walk on the sidewalk, the public sidewalk, before his residence on Clay Street. He was the man who was associated with the amphetamine case that led the termination of the police investigation in the 1970s. He was the man who held up the monthly checks of University of Liberia faculty and staff while he personally took the checks of select vendors and delivered them himself. He was the man who called Vice President of the University of Liberia Student government a “jigger flea.” My intention is not to vilify the dead but to point out that there are two sides to the story. Also, my point is not to justify the summary execution of Senator Frank E. Tolbert and others but to say that the anger of the coup was induced by the deep injustice of the day and that Frank E. Tolbert was one of those who perpetrated the injustice.

President Sirleaf seem to be insensitive to the fact that people like Richard Tolbert and others among her personal associates and high government officials are unrepentant hate-monger. They have come back to revenge. They have their hate list from which they draw a hit list and they are using their official positions and their close relationship with the president to get their revenge. This is one of the reasons why George Weah has become so attractive as an alternative to Madam Sirleaf. People who worked for previous governments are worried about the power Madam Sirleaf has given to Richard Tolbert and others like him. My fear is other people in the other camp who also think like the Tolbert’s will not sit down and get run over by the Tolberts. For instance, what kind of “poor country boy” will feel that he can get a fair consideration of investment incentive from Richard Tolbert? In view of Madam Sirleaf’s failure to reconcile Liberians and her tendency to empower the hate-monger of the past, she is creating the dividing line for the two sides that will contest the 2011 elections.

 With corruption on the rise and Americo-Liberians not willing to smoke the peace-pipe, Sirleaf will become a lame duck president if she continues to abdicate her executive functions.  I think it was the daily Observer that carried the story that the American Ambassador Linda Thomas Greenfield had a meeting with the widows of former soldiers who were demonstrating for payment of pension in the amount of five thousand dollars each.  As a person who grew up around members of the Armed Forces of Liberia, having lived as a student in the area of Bussy Quarters, I know that sentiments about soldiers and their widows can be strong among people who have background connected to the military. There are now thousands of people who have in this group. They are not only from Grand Gedeh, but from all parts of the country, including Lofa and Bong, which were the two counties with the largest numbers of soldiers before President Doe took power. Why would Madam Sirleaf let this problem continue indefinitely? If the American Ambassador thought that it was important enough to be more than a distraction but a serious security problem, why has Madam Sirleaf not addressed it? When the Liberian President shows inability or insensitivity or incompetence, a higher authority steps in. The American Ambassador becomes effectively the highest executive authority in the country.

The third story is the ritualistic killing that is being reported in Harper, the capitol city of Maryland County, Liberia. Lewis Verdier, II a reported of the Informer, a Liberian local newspaper, stated that residents have turned to God for an answer, instead of turning to President Sirleaf to investigate the perpetrator(s). Verdier, II said that the County’s Superintendent, have realized that the investigations aimed at identifying and bringing those behind the many cases of the mysterious disappearances and deaths of people in the County have failed; therefore, the religious leaders and the county authorities are now finding a new way, by seeking the face of God who they say knows the doers.

While residents of Maryland County were looking up to the Almighty for answer to the ritualistic killings of their love ones, women in Monrovia were matching to the European Union office. The reaction of some women to the decision by the Auditor General to audit the Ministry of Gender is another sign that President Sirleaf is either unable or unwilling to take charge of executive authority. These women seem to support Minister Gayflor and are opposed to the audit. It is very telling that these women took the protest against the Auditor General to the European Union office not to the President of Liberia. They are calling on the European to stop the Auditor General Morlu and not the Liberian government. In other words, they know that the effective forces fighting corruption in Liberia are in the international community, not the Liberian government. They know that left to the Liberian government, only small people will be investigated for corruption. I am not suggesting that Minister Gayflor is guilty of the charges of corruption. What I am saying that there is apparently a higher authority in the fight against corruption in Liberia and that authority is not the Liberia government; that the authority lies in the European Union and other international partners. 

President Sirleaf of Liberia is not seen in as someone of consequence in any of these matters.  This reminds us of the days when Samuel Doe was a lame duck president and was considered the authority behind the killings of as the NFPL invaded Liberia. Demonstrators went to the American Embassy with their protest and their petitions for security; they did not go to Doe. Also during the war, people took the dead and lay them before the American embassy in desperation for help. They did not go to Taylor or any of the transitional government. Women are supposed to be Madam Sirleaf’s most reliable constituency, if they do not find her useful in solving their complaints then one has to wonder how successful can this government claim to be?

I am sorry to say that after four complete years in office and with more than a billion dollars of international support, Madam Sirleaf has not established the authority of the state or promoted the reconciliation of the Liberian people. Nothing else could have been more important than these three challenges. Even if she starts to do these three things today, it will be too late.