‘RICE RIOT’ ENIGMA -‘Progressives’ Still Battling Stigma, Setting Records Straight

MONROVIA – Unarguably, in Liberia, there is no date, including the National Independence Day of July 26, that refreshes emotional, historical memories most amongst citizens than April 14, or the entire month of April, not only because it records the first major and cruelest of suppression of people’s rights to free expression and assembly – suppression that led to hitherto unprecedented bloodshed and mass death of unarmed citizens, but also because it marked the beginning of serial political events to culminated into the end of 133 years of settler or Americo-Liberians domination. Those unfamiliar with the April 14 story, or simply wanting to be merely politically cynical of a stock of citizens fondly called “progressives” and their role in pioneering the democratization of Liberia, hold them culpable for the birth of political violence every since. But remnants of the progressives and their devotees continue to fight back, endeavoring times without numbers to clear their name, including bringing clarity to the fog of controversy that has since hung on misery date and how it all happened. As the human calendar flaunts the month April, its augury and trauma have once again pervaded the country, recharging related public discourse. Fortunately, all the progressives are not dead and gone; and yet again, a number of veterans, including D. Karn Carlor, are replaying what they consider the true story of the date which has become a national enigma. The Analyst reports in part how the progressives keep defending their action—a must read for young political activists.          

The month of April in here yet again, and for Liberians, specifically those who are history- conscious, it is as not an ordinary one. Forty-six years ago, April 14 came. There was a costly altercation whereby on that day the hegemonic True Whig Party government unleashed national and foreign military gangs on a group of Liberians who were opting to protest in rejection of reported increase in the price of the nation’s staple, rice.

The event cast shadows of doom on the country up to this day, and its subsequent impacts expressed themselves in sequel instabilities that never healed until the government was violently overthrown, marking the upsurge of continued violence for nearly thirty years.

Some Liberians contend that the progressives—a band of young Liberians educated abroad, returned to the country and began agitation for multiparty democracy—are to blame for the April 14 demonstration and all the violent sequence of events that followed; allegation they have since consistently rejected.

This year as the April 14 history emerges, as usual prompting a national discourse in recent days at various forums, survivors of the struggle have concurrently risen to the challenge—keeping the national informed or re-informed on what exactly happened, why and how.

Chenoweth’s Proposal for Price Increase

A factsheet by the progressives as published in the “Voice of the Revolution” newspaper by the Progressive Alliance of Liberia (PAL) provided historical light to what happened before April 14, 1979.

Minister of Agriculture Florence Chenoweth recommended, first in her Annual Report of President William R. Tolbert, and second to the National Legislature that the price of rice be increased as an incentive to local farmers. She proposed that the price of a 100-pound bag of locally-produced rice be increased from $22.00 to $25.00 – an increase of 13.6 percent. She further suggested that the price of an equal amount of imported parboiled rice be raised from $22.00 to $30.00, that is, by an increase of 36.4 percent.

The Tolbert Administration pretended that the country was making tremendous progress toward self-sufficiency in rice production. It told the public that everybody was so “proud to be a farmer,” or, at least, a farmer’s son or daughter.

The Ministry of Information continuously printed a photograph showing a stockpile of rice in an effort to convince an unassured public. If the farmers have had enough incentives to have been producing such large quantities of rice, as the Tolbert Administration tried to have the public believe, why must the poor be burdened by an additional price increase? Haven’t the farmers been doing rather well without it? Which farmers told Honorable Chenoweth that they needed encouragement by way of a price increases? Could they be those “farmers” from the ruling class?

According to the Ministry Agriculture, the total cost to the farmer for producing one acre of swamp rice, using traditional farming methods, is $351.55. This generates a net profit of $68.45. However, in the face of mechanized production, the total cost of producing one acre of irrigated swamp rice is $593.82, producing a net profit of $246.18. What is necessary is mechanized production; equipment will make a difference – the difference between $68.45 and $246.18 an acre. In order to afford it, the farmers will have to be more extensively organized into cooperatives whereby they can secure loans and spread out the cost of machines among themselves. This is what Minister Chenoweth should be more vigorously promoting – that is, if she does take her job seriously.

Most rice farmers are engaged in subsistence agriculture; they are only growing to feed themselves.  Some can hardly do that. Quite a few have to rely on imported rice during the rainy season. Most have only a cutlass and a hoe, and there is a limit to the number of acres they can clear and plant with such implements. The price of rice could be $100 a bag and; it would not matter to the farmer if he does not have the tools to produce beyond subsistence.

According to Minister Chenoweth, local farmers produced 256 metric tons of rice in 1977 (see Liberian Age of March 16, 1979). This amounts to only 5,688 hundred- pound bags. Of course most of this was for the farmer’s own use. Even if it is assumed that our farmers will produce 6,500 bags in 1979, and if it is further assumed that they will put every bag on the market, a $3 price increase will give the farmers an additional profit of $19,500. On the other hand, Chenoweth affirms that the quantity of rice Liberia imported in 1978 amounted to 47,879 metric tons. This is 1,064, 361 hundred-pound bags. A price increase of $8 a bag will provide importers an additional profit of more than $8 million.

$19,500 for the farmers! $8 million for the importers! $8 million of the poor people’s sweat. Is Honorable Chenoweth aware of this? She should be. The lady knows what she is doing. And this cannot help but attract attention to the rumor that some wealthy Liberians are seeking permits to import large quantities of rice which they may likely keep to be sold at even higher price after the importation of rice is terminated in 1980. The public could end up paying a very high price for Chenoweth’s desire to help our farmers – as she claims.

THE INCOME LEVEL OF THE CONSUMERS

What is the income level of those whom Minister Chenoweth seems to heartlessly assume are able to purchase rice at higher prices?

According to a World Bank Report on Liberia, 74 percent of the population has a per capita income of $70.00 a year. This means that, for 74 percent of the people in Liberia, if the money they make each year were put together and then divided equally among all of them, each person would get $70.00 a year. (The report also showed that, for 4 percent of the population, the per capita income is $3,000.00 a year.)

Most of those with the per capita income of $70 a year reside in rural Liberia. Out of this $70, those with huts have to pay $20 in taxes every year. Those are the same people who have to make not-so-“voluntary” contributions to “Rally Time” and who are now also being asked by the government to engage in “self-help” development projects. They cannot afford any increase in the price of anything.

The urban areas present an equally dismal picture. The government admits that unemployment is as high as 25 percent in the cities, but it contends that even the ladies sitting at street corners with pans of oranges for sale are employed. Most people cannot afford to by rice even at current prices.

Perhaps Honorable Chenoweth could not care about all of this because she has a job from which she derives more than $21,600 in salary and fringe benefits each year. She and the people in her class will not be the ones to starve. She seems to be familiar with the rhyme, “of all my mother’s children.” Yes, she probably says, “and when I get my stomach full, I don’t care for the rest.”

The Government of Liberia, as administered by the True Whig Party, has failed to provide job opportunities for the poor. Unemployment is extremely high among young people, and thousands go to bed hungry every day. Prices are alarmingly increasing and, for those who are lucky to be employed, salaries are low. Poor people are suffering. Each day is a survival test. Yet, in the midst of it all, the best the Tolbert Administration seems prepared to do is to increase the burden on the poor by higher rice prices. The True Whig Party is fighting the war against poverty! Yes, “deed, not words.” “By their fruits, ye shall know them.”

PAL PLANS MASS DEMONSTRATION ON RICE ISSUE

Since August 1978, the Progressive Alliance of Liberia has been expressing concern to the Government of Liberia about the idea of an increase in the price of rice. As a continuation of its efforts on behalf of the poor, PAL has decided to organize a mass demonstration of concerned citizens for April 14. The following comments and extracts from letters are offered for the information of the public.

August 21, 1978 PAL sent Minister Chenoweth a letter observing that: “We harbor misgiving about the idea of an increment in the price of rice. However, in the interest of objectivity, we wish to ask that you be so kind as to inform us of your reasons for advancing the idea as well as the basis upon which your Ministry makes projection of results.”

A copy of the letter was forwarded to President Tolbert for his information.

September 6, 1978: President Tolbert wrote the organization saying: “While this matter is being considered by Government, we appreciate the interest shown by the public as demonstrated by you and I look forward to the reaction of the Minister by affording the opportunity of hearing your views and conveying to you her justification for making the recommendation, so that an objective appraisal of the situation can be made.”

The use of the word “justification” rather than, for example, “reason” suggests that the President identifies with Chenoweth’s views and supports the idea of a price increase.

September-November 1978: PAL contacted Honorable Chenoweth’s office on several occasions in the hope of obtaining a response. These efforts were to no avail. At first, the organization’s letter was reported missing. PAL submitted a copy. That did not make a difference.

January 15, 1979: PAL released the first issue of The Voice of the Revolution dated January 30, 1979! It carried the following question for its readers: How do you feel about the Government’s idea of a possible increase in the price of rice? Write: The Voice of the Revolution….”

The implication was that an article on the rice issue would be forthcoming. It appears that the Ministry of Agriculture drew such a conclusion. Knowing that PAL had not been sent a response, it decided to do so.

January 17, 1979: A letter from the Ministry of Agriculture was hand-delivered to PAL’s Center on January 17, 1979. It was dated September 4, 1978, and was the reply to the organization’s letter of August 21, 1978. It submitted a booklet on the government’s agricultural plan and objective.

January 19, 1979: PAL wrote Honorable Chenoweth, referred to the letter it received on January 17, and noted: “While we appreciate the effort, we regret that the literature does not seem to satisfy our interest: the reason why your Ministry advanced the idea of an increment in the price of rice, and the basis upon which your office makes projection of results.

“We believe a meeting with you would be most useful…”

February 8, 1979: Chenoweth replied saying: “I appreciate your concern and I suggest you come in to the Ministry in Sinkor, Monrovia, and consult with the Assistant Minister for Planning, Honorable Joshua Cooper, Jr. Minister Cooper will supply you with all the information we have.”

PAL believes Chenoweth had been trying all along to avoid putting her views in writing. It also believes she suggested a discussion with Joshua Cooper so as to leave herself free from being quoted on anything. However, a discussion with Cooper became necessary after Chenoweth submitted her annual report to the Legislature. It contained her “funny” story about increase in the price of rice to encourage the local farmers.

March 17, 1979: During a PAL meeting in Monrovia, the issue of Honorable Chenoweth’s recommendation was discussed. The members noted that they are poor people who are being pressured by too many price increases and that one on rice is clearly a threat to their survival. Apart from agreeing to inform the Legislature about their views, they also decided to stage a mass demonstration in order to dramatize their opposition to any increase of the price of rice.

PAL members in the United States and England were notified, and they are making arrangements to attract international publicity to the demonstration.

March 20, 1979: On March 20, 1979, Honorable Oliver Bright, Jr., Minister of Justice, was written by PAL Chairman Matthews as follows: “I have the honor to request, on behalf of myself, and members of this organization and other interested and concerned citizens, a permit for a peaceful mass demonstration in total opposition to the unconscionable idea of an increase in the price of rice.

We would wish the permit to provide for a parade, replete with banners and posters, on April 14, 1979, beginning at 3:30 o’clock p.m., starting at PAL’s Center in Monrovia, travelling on Randall Street, Broad Street, and Camp Johnson Road, and ending on the sidewalk before, but across the street from, the Executive Mansion.”

The organization forwarded President Tolbert a copy of its letter to the Minister of Justice.

March 22, 1979:

President Tolbert departed for a scheduled official visit to France on March 21. The following day, Honorable E. Reginald Townsend, Minister of State for Presidential Affairs, sent PAL’s Chairman a letter indicating that: “With respect to your letter of 20th instant addressed to the President, and to which was attached the carbon copy of your letter to the Minister of Justice, the President has directed that I discuss the matter with you.

“I shall therefore be pleased were you to call at the Mansion at 10 o’clock tomorrow morning, Friday the 23rd instant.”

Chairman Matthews and Secretary-General Oscar Quiah of PAL met with Minister of State Townsend and Minister of Justice Oliver Bright, Jr., giving cause to the following report: Townsend indicated that the President was very surprised about PAL’s idea of a demonstration especially since he has kept open a line of communication with the movement for the discussion of any issue. He further said the President’s view is that 1) there has never been a mass demonstration in Liberia of the kind PAL contemplates; 2) demonstrations are “alien” to Liberian thinking; and 3) the first one would be only the start of a series of demonstrations – from the issue of rice, the people will find others.

Minister Bright cautioned about the unleashing of forces that nobody might be able to control. He mentioned the case of Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran. Bright admitted that he is a rice farmer. Townsend observed that the idea of increasing the price of rice is still under discussion in the Cabinet, and that Minister Chenoweth’s recommendation, which appeared in her Annual Report, was actually intended for the consideration of the President. But, by law, he said, Annual Reports must be submitted to the National Legislature. Minister Bright added that the Legislature will not give consideration to a recommendation in an Annual Report from a Cabinet Minister unless that recommendation is reduced to a bill and submitted by the President.

The President, said Minister Townsend, is interested in holding a discussion, upon his return from France, with PAL members and any other concerned citizens the organization may wish to bring – as many as 20 persons – for a review of the rice issue.

Chairman Matthews said that PAL’s only concern is that the price of rice must not be increased. The poor people are angry, and nobody is going to take it. He declared that PAL members and other poor people are being mobilized for April 14, and everybody is very much ready to get on the streets. He welcomed the President’s idea of a discussion and said PAL would bring 20 citizens, including the market women, industrial workers, students, and other poor people who are now ready for the demonstration. Hopefully, he said, the President might be able to tell them something that will make a difference.

March 26, 1979: PAL received from Oliver Bright, Minister of Justice, a letter dated March 21, that is, two days before the meeting with PAL officials at the Executive Mansion.

“I acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 20, 1979, in which you request permission for the members of your organization to parade through the streets of Monrovia on April 14, 1979. In order to enable me to consider your request, I will be pleased were you to give me information as to the status of your organization as I am not aware of its existence in Liberia. Furthermore, I am interested in knowing the reasons why an organization which apparently is a United States entity and based in that country would desire to hold a parade in Liberia.”

PAL forwarded Minister Bright the following observations on March 26, 1979:

“We refer to your letter of March 21, 1979, and wish to observe that it was read with much sympathy for President Tolbert.

It is most surprising that two days after you claimed not to know this organization as a Liberian entity, you officially participated, along with the Minister of State for Presidential Affairs, in a meeting with its officers at the Executive Mansion. We must, therefore, conclude that your letter was premature and uninformed, and that your presence at that meeting is an indication that you have abandoned and disowned your letter in its entirety. It is henceforth construed, and will be treated, as null and void

“Initially, we found it strange that the President directed the Minister of State to discuss with us a matter properly the prerogative of your office. Having received your letter, we have become convinced that the President knows you better than we do.

“In the cause of the people, the struggle continues.”

APRIL 14 A YAH!—Questions that Help

“It is madness to suppose that the capitalists will submit voluntarily and that they will calmly surrender their…profits, their privileges of exploitation. All ruling classes have fought obstinately to the end for their privileges… All shed rivers of blood. They trampled upon corpses, they committed murder, arson, and state treason; they precipitated civil war for the purpose of defending their privileges and power.

The imperialist capitalist class will defend its ‘holy of holies’—its profits and privileges of exploitation—tooth and nail. It will defend them with cold-blooded viciousness….. It will move heaven and hell against the workers… It will get its officers to commit massacres… To save itself, it will invoke the assistance of the foreign enemy… It will sooner than later turn the country into a smoking heap of ruins than voluntarily relinquish its power.”

The Suggestion To Demonstrate Against The Proposed Increase In The Price Of Rice Came From ——-Officers And Members Of Pal…Why Did You Officers Endorse It?

Our organization is democratic. Furthermore, we are always ready to provide our people the leadership necessary for whatever phase of the struggle for which they become ready. We have always told our people that power concedes nothing without a demand; that freedom is not free; that progress comes through struggle; that men who will not fight for what they want are men who have agreed to take what they get. Of course, a Liberian organization that is not ready to fight for rice is certainly not ready to fight for anything else.

Did You Believe the President Would Have Preferred To Hold The Price Of Rice At $22.00 Rather Than To Have You Parading Through The Street?

Recently, we issued a notice to demonstrate only as an exercise in organized pressure.  What are the interests of the ruling class in this country and of President Tolbert’s political interest in particular? We felt that the advantages to him in his avoiding a mass demonstration by holding steady the price of rice were by far more important than the advantages from a price increase.

We know that the Tolberts have been the largest rice growers and the largest rice importers, and that they stood to benefit substantially from a price increase. Yet, we felt the President would realize the importance of even losing money in the short run so as to preserve an atmosphere for making more money in the long run. Every businessman knows that even the suspicion of instability is bad for business.

Why Did You All Carry Out A Demonstration Against The Decision Of The Government?

To suggest that we demonstrated is to assume the existence of a fact which has yet to be proven. Let us review the developments up to the time the government resorted to armed aggression against unarmed citizens.

After President received from us notice of an intent to stage a peaceful demonstration on April 14, we were invited to the Mansion for a discussion. We made ourselves available, and on March 28, 1979, he told us that he would make a decision on the rice issue by the end of the first week in April; that is, by April 7.

On April 2, when our Chairman met with him to discuss a different matter, the President said that, as he had sent some members of the Rice Committee on a mission to America, this would occasion a delay in the announcement of the decision. He further indicated that there would certainly be public notice about the matter before April 14. He concluded by telling the Chairman privately, that the price of rice was actually going to be increased, though he said he did not know at the time how much that increase would turn out to be. He said he had been holding down the price for a long time, but it was no longer possible to do so.

The President was reminded of PAL’s position: we viewed an increase in the price of rice as a threat to the survival of poor people, and we would not take it.

We just made up our minds that, in the face of an increase we would get on the streets with or without a permit. Yet, we continued to seek a solution to the rice issue with the hope of avoiding a confrontation with the government. As you may have learned, we came up with the idea of offering the government $19,500, based on the figures on local rice production, to assist the local rice farmer provided there would be no price increase.

President Tolbert reflected arrogance of power and rejected the offer outright with the contention that it was not consistent with government’s solution to national problems. But what did he think his entire Rally Time program is all about? Ours was, most likely, the only public offer the man had ever refused.

After the refusal of our offer, we simply braced ourselves to hear the President’s pronouncement at least by the time the radio station closed on Friday night, April 13.

Senator Tubman came on the air that evening to issue kind advice against our going on the streets. Our minds ran back to the January 1977 issue of the THE REVOLUTION which carried an interview PAL leaders held in New York with the Senator. The issue of the high cost of food in Liberia was raised, and he responded saying:

“I am a political scientist, not an economist. But, I do know that when rice is selling for $24 a bag and a man makes $35 a month, he can’t make it. That much I know. Yes, that much I know, and there is no question about it. And something had to be done about that.”

Yes, something had to be done, and we were tired waiting on our legislators to do it!

The President remained silent on April 13. But, we anticipated this possibility. Thirty minutes after ELBC went off the air, Oscar Quiah, our Secretary-General, returned to our headquarters. There he met Mr. Albert Porte who had earlier held a discussion with the President during which Mr. Porte volunteered his services to help call off the demonstration. Our Secretary-General informed him of the leadership’s position that there would be no demonstration.

Importantly, Chairman Matthews sent the President a letter early during the morning of April 14 confirming that our members were only lawfully assembling, and that they would not get on the streets without a permit as we understood the law requires. He suggested, however, that the practical thing for Dr. Tolbert to do was to grant the permit and provide a band and police protection for the parade.

Look, politics is the art of the possible; only the possible. There are no miracles. Now, given Dr. Tolbert’s long years of political experience, one cannot help but believe he would bring to his decision-making process, a well-defined framework of analysis. He ought to know that, in politics, things do not appear in either black or white. It is usually the gray in between; sometimes a very dull shade of gray. Politics is the arena in which a man succeeds only by being willing to give a little to save a lot.

We wrote the President that Saturday morning because we did not want him to misinterpret the intentions of our assembly that day. We tried to deal with him using extreme caution because we had never seen him under real pressure.

Dr. Tolbert could have won himself the day by simply issuing permit while claiming to believe in democracy. He could have in fact asked us to please go out on the streets and thereby prove for all the world to see, that at least freedom of expression exists in Liberia; that change is being brought about from within the True Whig Party and an opposition party is, therefore, unnecessary, and that the Tolbert Administration has restored manhood to the Liberian people. Had he reduced the permit to an act of greatness on his part, any march by us would have reduced us to nothing more than fools.

You can therefore understand our surprise when the Tolbert regime chose to brutally and unlawfully interfere with our right of assembly which is guaranteed by the Constitution.

A horde of unruly policemen came into our yard that morning, and these trespassers asked those who had a right to be there to just get out. But what law were we violating? Those of us in our headquarters were asked to vacate the premises. But why? We know the law, we are aware of our rights, so we refused to leave. In fact, PAL leaders had cautioned everyone to stay on the private property and away from the streets so that the government would not pretend we were demonstrating without a permit. We went so far as to block the exit from the yard so as to keep our people in.

One police official picked up a stone and threw it at the crowd. That was the first act of violence.

The fire brigade, which is never on time for a fire, was punctually available and began spraying the people with water.

The police resorted to teargas. They were so undisciplined and outrageous that Bishop Browne, who tried to intervene so as to bring the crisis to an end, gave up and left. The police began a fight but, one on one, many of them were beaten up and thrown into the Sohni Drainage. They increased the use of teargas in the yard and extended its use to our headquarters, and then they started shooting!

The police, under orders from the President and the ruling class whose interests he represents, carried out an operation which incited the crowd and inflamed, with gunpowder, the passion of the people. Our people were driven from the yard into the streets, and they went out with anger in their hearts and fire in their eyes. President Tolbert had started a riot. And that which he was afraid of had come upon him already.

Yes, the crowd surged on. There was no turning back. Unarmed men and women, old and young, stood up and fought policemen who were shooting high-powered automatic weapons. Many died, but the others remained wielded together by a common experience.

On that blessed day, the people stood up and rid themselves of fear. Nothing can stop them now. Victory is certain. Liberia will never be the same kind of country again.

Your Demonstration Was Scheduled For 3 O’clock.  Why Were You All Out Very Early That Saturday Morning?

We had learned Friday afternoon that the Tolbert Cabinet had just concluded a meeting during which it was decided that the police and the army would blockade the entrances to places such as West Point and New Kru Town, and they would occupy the yard of our headquarters, the designated starting point for the demonstration.

We passed that information on to our members. As such, when the police reached our yard that Saturday morning, we were already occupying it. When they reached West Point, for example, those who wanted to leave were already out.

Since You All Had Not Started Demonstrating And Were Not On The Streets When The Police Opened Fire, Why Were They Shooting?

You would have to ask the police and President Tolbert. We do know that when the police arrived the morning of April 14, they began inquiring discreetly whether Matthews was in the Organization’s headquarters. After they increased the use of teargas and started shooting, they watched everyone who came out of the house. Maybe they did not see who they were looking for, they rushed in. But, Gabriel Baccus Matthews wasn’t there!

The President had said no one should come out for any demonstration, and warnings equivalent to a declaration of war had been issued. We told the people to come out, and they did, thereby making the President like a man whom no one wanted to obey

much more follow. We are of the opinion that the police came out as judge, jurors and

executioners of those who, in government’s view, had challenged authority.

The police did not come to stop a demonstration; they came to stop a political party. They came to abort a baby. There are still individuals in Liberia who believe they can stop an idea by stopping a man.

Where Did The Looting Start?

The looting began at our headquarters. When the police entered our office, they began a wave of destruction, perhaps in anger for not finding our Chairman there. They broke doors, walls, chairs, desks, etc. They also looted the personal effects of our Chairman who resides there. They took away everything they could, from radio to teaspoon. In other words, the April 14 looting was initiated by the forces of law and order.

What Do You Think Of The Charge Of Treason That Was Brought Against The Leaders?

We believe President Tolbert added 2 plus 2 and ended up with 5 ½. After more than a hundred persons had been killed and foreign troops had been invited, the government apparently believed it had to imagine an offense serious enough to explain its overreaction. But, the very fact that the Tolbert Administration is still around, despite the fact that its officials went into hiding, is proof that nobody wanted to overthrow it.

We are getting accustomed to being accused, and the accusations arise not from our doing anything wrong, but simply because we are opponents of the True Whig Party and we stand in the way of exploitation of our people.

In February 1978, we learned that we were promoting nationwide labor unrest to destabilize the country and overthrow the government. In December 1978, President Tolbert and some officials of government invited us to the Mansion and showed us an anonymous letter sent to the Chief of Staff of the Army encouraging him to overthrow the government. They tried to convince us that we were the ones who wrote it. We expressed our amusement over their effort and noted our regrets that they had nothing more important to do.

In April 1979, after we requested a permit to demonstrate, it was said that our Chairman committed some kind of offense seven years ago, and the government was now ready to try him. Also in April, our leaders were charged for treason; that they “conspired, connived, contrived, and combined to overthrow the Government of the Republic of Liberia.”

Our concern is not how to overthrow the government, but how to save it from overthrowing itself.The Government Of Had Said That PAL Fed Its Members With Dope Throughout The Night Of April 13. Is That True?

About a week before the release of our leaders from prison, our Chairman and Secretary-General held a meeting in Bentol with President Tolbert. In regards to this drug issue, they posed a simple query to the President. If his claims were true, they asked, why did he not have the so-called drug users arrested that night? Why did he show indifference to the enforcement of the drug laws of the country? Interestingly, he did not reply.

If most people would just add a little thinking to what some officials say, then most of what is heard around here would be analyzed out of existence.

On April 14, You Pal People Demonstrated A Good Deal Of Skill: Blocking The Streets And Immobilizing The Police After The Shooting Started; Using Kerosene And Potato Greens To Neutralize The Teargas; Then Evading Arrest And Making The Government Look Foolish For A Good Period Of Time. How Did You Do It?

We do try to be resourceful. 1979 is not 1955, and PAL is not the Independent True Whig Party. We have organization and discipline and, today, the strategy is different. We do our best to be prepared for practically anything that can develop. We work hard. Here, the risks are high, and we must be prepared to minimize them.

Our Chairman Is Said To Have Written A Letter Of “Repentance” On Behalf Of Himself And His Co-Defendants While He Was In Prison. Did He And, If So, Why?

Chairman Matthews has indicated the following:

“On Saturday, April 21, I sent a message to Honorable Joseph J.F. Chesson informing him of my desire to surrender to government and of my interest in his effecting arrangements for me to do so. Following a discussion he held with the President, he and I went to the Mansion and were taken into the office of the Deputy Minister of State for National Security Affairs. There we met Honorable Oliver Bright, the then Minister of Justice.

“After an hour of waiting to be taken into the office of the President, the telephone rang and Minister Bright held a brief conversation with someone on the other end of the line. He turned to us and said, “They are ready.” As we proceeded, he said, smilingly, “Baccus, when you go in there, talk good to the President,” with special emphasis on the word “good.”

“They” who were “ready”, perhaps to hear me talk “good”, included the Vice President, the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Foreign Minister, the Minister of Information, etc. A lady came in with a steno pad to take notes.

“The President looked at me for a good while and slowly said, Mr. Matthews, you are a very lucky man. You are lucky to still be alive. You ought to say your prayers every day. You should get on your knees everyday and thank God that you are still alive.” Dr. Tolbert knew exactly what he was talking about.

“Chesson spoke and recounted my request for his help. Dr. Tolbert followed by trying to provide his version of the April 14 crisis, sprinkled with questions directed to me. We disagreed sharply, then he became angry, and Chesson signaled me against arguing. I most certainly wasn’t talking “good.”

“You cannot imagine the mess into which you have plunged this country,” the President shouted. “Stand up!” he yelled. I stood up. He then calmed down and said, “Alright, you can take your chances in court.” “Chances?” I asked, and he replied, “Of course, chances, what else did you think?”

“Chesson said, “Well, Mr. President, I am putting Baccus’ life in your hands.” The President shrugged his shoulders, and I actually heard him say, “I cannot guarantee anything if the man will not cooperate.” “But he is already cooperating,” Chesson said. Tolbert seemed unimpressed.

“The President turned to Wilfred Clarke, Deputy Minister for National Security, and said, “Treat him according to the law.” Very good choice of words, but I began to realize that should not take chances with Dr. Tolbert. As such I assured him that I would “cooperate”. That seemed to have made the man even angrier, because he stood from his seat and shouted, “You better damn well cooperate, if you know what I know.”

“Minister Clarke was told to take us into custody. As we walked towards the car to leave the Mansion area, Clarke said to me, “Baccus, had you been at your headquarters that morning, we wouldn’t have any problems on our hands right now.” I didn’t know what he meant, but I wondered whether the fact that I was alive made me a liability.

“I was taken to the office of the National Security Agency where I held a meeting with the senior officials who informed me that I would have no problem with them. Yet, they noted that I am an intelligent man who should be practical. In a gentlemanly tone, I was asked to please “cooperate.”

“Tuesday morning, April 24, one of my guards came to me and said, Director Nelson says if you are ready to write the letter, you should let him know so he can send you pen and paper.” I said I was not ready, though I remembered I had told the President that I would “cooperate.”

“I spent the day making a realistic assessment of circumstances. I reflected on the possible reasons why the other comrades were being questioned and sent to Central Prison while I was the only one being kept in isolation at NSA. I did not rule out a freak “accident” or an “attempted escape”; I never have reasons to trust anybody. I knew that the President wanted something to help free himself and thereby be in a position to free us since, for many reasons, it was in his interest to do so. I knew how he would attempt to use what I would write. Yet, I realized correctly, though perhaps conveniently, that it would not be as damaging to our people as their losing a leader at this particular stage of our struggle.

“I decided to write a “higher heights kind of letter and “talk good.” I decided it would be couched in a manner as would minimize the President’s embarrassment and save his face while yet being vague enough to preserve our legal interests. Politically, it had to say a lot, but legally, nothing.

“Wednesday morning, April 25, I wrote the letter and Director Nelson rushed to the Mansion with it. In a few hours I received a response. The two letters became part of government’s “official” report dated April 26. Anyone who really knows how to read should have been able to deduce from Dr. Tolbert’s letter that the case was over.”