EDITORIAL: Unity Party, Where is Your Promised Transparency?

RECENTLY, A FLEET of earth-moving equipment arrived in the country, made to parade streets of Monrovia, and greeted by a flurry of euphoria across the country from unsuspecting Liberians, who from the mere periphery of the dramatic stunt, saw it all as sincere move on the part of the Unity Party-led Government to remedy, once and for all, the perennial problem of impassable road conditions.

BUT NO LONGER had the euphoria begun than it was dampened by a very loud silence from the Boakai Administration on how the equipment were acquired, from whom and where. That was when many citizens, including some legislators began to question the legitimacy of the acquisition process.

IN AN APPARENT effort to put a lid on the sweltering contempt for the esoteric deal, President Boakai addressed a communication to House Speaker Jonathan Koffa on July 9, 2024. The President conceded the basis of the public angst, but argued that it was much to do about nothing. He said the equipment were brought into the country by an earth-moving equipment company at its own expense; that the process was based on a friendship and gentleman’s agreement with a sympathetic entrepreneur; that the government committed no funds to the process that was ongoing, and that he would duly inform the Legislature and proffer any evolving agreement to it for information or ratification.

WE SIT ASTRIDE the two reactions to the deal. While we agree that the country needs the equipment badly to address decades-long goods and services movement problems, like all other concerned Liberians, we think the President’s letter raises more questions than it cared to answer. And that is scary.

ON TOP OF the list of questions that beg immediate answers are these few ones:  Why did the Executive Mansion choose to exclude, from the process, government agencies  responsible for procurement and cost analysis? Isn’t it personalizing public procurement efforts when the efforts are based on friendship and gentleman’s agreement with the president? A gentleman agreement being a legal instrument, who will be held liable when the deal backfires; when the agreement becomes a legal liability? Is it the President or the taxpayers?

THE PRESIDENT SEEMS to argue that because no dime was committed to the process, the negotiation remains informal. But it’s difficult to believe that no ‘dime’ was paid. Here is why: didn’t the equipment come through the Freeport of Monrovia duty-free connoting revenue loss? Are the equipment not being stored and secured by the government of Liberia? Aren’t the supplier’s agents being lodged and fed at the expense of the taxpayers? Indeed, if our assumptions are anything to go by, then the President needs to understand that the nation has already incurred huge expenses and continues to do so as we went to press last night.

WE HAIL THE President’s efforts to solve the many problems assailing the country, but we disagree that creating a public relation stunt is a good starter. We choose transparency and accountability over any quick-fixed “rescue efforts” that flout the laws of the land.

WE THEREFORE CALL on President Boakai to do the right thing by immediately redefining the process leading to the purchase of public property. We are happy that he has friends who are willing to move lifesaving investment into Liberia. But we hold that he cannot do so at the expense of the law and the involvement of the Liberian people and their representatives.

WE LOOK FORWARD to a new beginning on the foundation of the rule of law and practiced procedures.

Comments are closed.