MONROVIA – When the Liberia Electricity Corporation (LEC) imported hazardous chemicals in the country, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined them US$10,000. This happened in January this year. Now, a private company, York Trading Inc., committed the same offense in April and the acting Executive Director, Randall Dobayou fines them US$1,400 – the least fine ever in the EPA’s history. The discrepancy is raising eyebrows.
Report by Lennart Dodoo, [email protected]
Documents obtained by FrontPageAfrica show that York Trading In. which is located Vai Town, Bushrod Island, imported 25,920kg of concentrated sulfuric acid contained in a 20ft container marked MRKU978068422G1. The import originated from The Netherlands.
Sulfuric acid is an industrial chemical which has multiple applications all of which have environmental impacts. Importation by permit affords EPA the opportunity to know the end users and also ensure that the end users are trained to use the product in order minimize its impacts on the environment.
Like the LEC, the company failed to obtain a permit from the EPA for the importation of the hazardous substance which led to its confiscation by the Liberia Revenue Authority (LRA), especially so because it was their second time breaching the EPA law. This was in March this year.
LRA action was part of custom regional enforcement operations under the auspices of the World Custom Organization (WCO) for combating the illicit flow of precursor chemicals used to produce improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
In its communication to the EPA, Commissioner of Customs informed the EPA of the chemicals and requested the EPA to investigate the nature of the chemicals.
The EPA then took charge of the container on April 10 and began investigation into the matter.
During a meeting held with the York Trading Inc., the EPA informed them of the gravity of their offense and how it would cost them a fine not exceeding US$50,000.
“Your invitation to a conference with EPA is predicated upon your recent application to EPA for importation of chemicals when, in fact, the chemicals was already in the Free Port of Monrovia. Your application to EPA was prompted by the confiscation of the chemical by the Liberia Revenue Authority (LRA) for lacking EPA permit. This act is a complete violation of Part V; section 55 of the Environmental Protection and Management Law of Liberia which is punishable by a fine not exceeding 50,000 US DOLLARS or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 20 years or to both,” the citation to York Inc. states.
The EPA further stated in their citation: “It was also revealed by LRA that this round of importation is the second time in 2020 which clearly indicates that your entity has been importing chemicals into Liberia for a protracted period.”
Sources within the environmental sector informed FrontPageAfrica that the EPA often fine for that nature of offense between US$10,000 and US$50,000.
“He instructed the committee to put in the report that they recommended the fine of US$1,400. That is the lowest fine ever in the history of the EPA. Even if the committee recommended that, as acting head of the entity, can’t you see the company is a multiple offender and must be punished appropriately?”
– An EPA Source
The Least Fine Ever
When FrontPageAfrica inquired about the discrepancy in the fine for the same offense, Mr. Aloysius David, Acting Communications Director at the EPA, informed this paper that the scenario was not of the same magnitude.
According to him, the LEC had been in constant violation for year. He, however, could not say how many importations the LEC had made. He also failed to acknowledge that York Inc. had made two importations of the same chemical without seeking permit from the EPA.
Mr. David further stated “law provides that we can fine base on the magnitude of the offense and the business size”.
He added that the fine imposed by York Trading was advanced by the technical team and not by the agency’s Deputy Executive Director.
Bribery or Poor Discretion?
Sources within the sector and the EPA familiar with the York Trading development informed FrontPageAfrica that Mr. Dobayou after privately meeting with the company instructed that they be fined US$1,400.
“He instructed the committee to put in the report that they recommended the fine of US$1,400. That is the lowest fine ever in the history of the EPA. Even if the committee recommended that, as acting head of the entity, can’t you see the company is a multiple offender and must be punished appropriately?” the source said.
The source added, “The fine is supposed to be not less than US$10,000 and not more than US$50,000. That’s what the law says. That’s what we’ve been going by and after they’ve paid the fine into government’s revenue account, they have to come into compliance with the EPA. They’ll have to fulfill all the requirements for the importation of such chemical before getting a permit. It is after they get the permit before the chemical can be released to them.”
The source also wondered why Mr. Dobayou held a private meeting with the company after they were cited.
“Just when the team had finalized their report and a fine of not less than US$10,000 was about to be imposed, Mr. Dobayou instructed that they be fined US$1,400. In fact, we had contacted York Trading, but they said they had already spoken to the boss,” the source said.
Why EPA Didn’t Bring York Into Compliance
During his Wednesday, April 29, 2020 appearance on Spoon FM, the Deputy Executive Director alluded that York Trading Incorporation had fully submitted the required Environmental Management Plan report, and fulfilled the Environmental Social Impacts Assessment Process (ESIA), which is a statutory requirement prior to the EPA’s approval of York Trading Incorporated request to import chemical.
In the case of York Trading Incorporated has existed for more than four years, therefore, as per the ESIA Procedural Guidelines of 2017, the company is required to submit to the following: application, preparation and submission of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) by Project Consultant; Payment of Permit processing fees by Project Owner; Review of EMP by the Technical Committee; Site verification by the Technical Committee; Presentation of key findings from site verification to Technical committee. It is after all these requirements are fulfilled that the EPA issues the permit.
In fulfillment of the Environmental Protection & Management Law 2002/03 and adherence to the updated ESIA Procedural Guidelines 2017, these requirements are to be fulfilled prior to the authorization of any company, industry or corporation, especially when found operating in violations to continue operation. Additionally, EPML 2002/03 Section 55 subsection 1, 5 & 6; states the following;
No person shall illegally import into Liberia any hazardous waste or substance;
Any person who imports any hazardous waste or substance into Liberia contrary to subsection (1) shall be responsible for the removal of the waste from Liberia and for its safe disposal;
In addition, any person who imports into Liberia, exports out of Liberia, and transports within Liberia, hazardous waste except as prescribed by the provisions of this section commits an offence and is on conviction liable to a fine not exceeding 50,000 US DOLLARS or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 20 years or to both.
Without fulfilling any of these requirements, Mr. Dobayou ordered the containers be to the released to the company, according to documents obtained by FrontPageAfrica. This clearly contravenes the ESIA Procedural Guideline of 2017.
The containers of hazardous substance was released to the company without any evidence of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) report submitted to the EPA by York Trading Incorporated; No evidence of Consultant that was hired by York Trading that prepared the EMP as claimed; No evidence of the payment of the ESIA permit processing fees; no evidence of the Date of review of the EMP; No site verification report and name of technical staff who participated in the review process; and No evidence of inputs or review outcomes from the review of the EMP.