MONROVIA — The full bench of the Supreme Court of Liberia Tuesday, April 30 declined to grant two separate Bill of Information from suspended tenure officials at both the Liberia Telecommunications Authority (LTA) and the Governance Commission.
By Willie Tokpah
Petitioners Edwina Crump Zackpah, chairperson, Israel Akinsanya, James Gbarwea, Zotawon Titus and Osborne Diggs, commissioners, had filed a Bill of Information agajnst the Executive Branch of Government, by and through the Ministry of Justice and newly appointed Acting Commissioners of the LTA, while on the other hand, Atty.
Garrison Doldeh Yealue, Jr. also filed a Bill of information against the Executive, through the Ministry of Justice.
This follows their suspensions by President Joseph Boakai recently, pending a comprehensive audit by the General Auditing Commission.
Their suspensions followed two days after the Board of Commissioners and Yealue, the suspended Chair of the Governance Commission, won a legal battle against President Boakai’s administration, when the Supreme Court ruled that government’s legal counsel proceeded wrongly.
In a communication to the LTA, suspended Commissioners highlighted “questionable” financial dealings and the controversy surrounding the over $4.6 million dollars headquarters project in which over two million was spent since last year, with little to show for it
Following their suspensions, President Boakai appointed Abdullah Kamara as Chair, Patrick Honnah, Clarence Massaquoi, Angela Bush, and Ben Fofana as Commissioners to the LTA, respectively.
However, the LTA suspended Commissioners filed a Bill of Information, informing the Supreme Court that despite its decision revoking the nomination of officials to the tenure positions, the Executive through President Boakai, has in glaring disregard for the rule of law and out of disrespect to the court, communicated a letter of suspension from their respective offices.
According to them, the suspension is a form of punishment and an act subsequent and not an act precedent, which they noted was done without according them due process.
They noted that the suspension is an obstruction of the court’s function and that the suspension letter is a constructive letter of dismissal and not suspension.
The petitioners noted that in order to preserve their independence, Commissioners of the LTA should serve, until and unless proven in violation of the LTA Act.
The petitioners, among other counts, argued that there is nothing to warrant their removal from office and that the same individuals who nominations were revoked.
According to them, there are provisions in the LTA Act that provide for removal, in which they said none was averred by the indefinite suspension letters.
Therefore, they requested the court to declare their suspensions unlawful and revoke the suspension and appointment of the Acting Board of Commissioners of the LTA, as well as to remind the Executive to desist.
Akinsanya, however, said that the controversy over tenure can be legally addressed, but suspending tenure officials and appointing acting in their steads is not the way to go.
“Strange as it is, that was the option pursued. This complexity was given new meaning that we be audited as if we have been opposed to audit,” he said.
“We have been audited at the LTA from 2018 to 2021-2022. By taking public office, we are aware of all transparency and accountability measures. Only audit covering the period 2022 to 2023 can establish whether or not we have been involved in any financial wrongdoing. I have built my character as a professional over the years. I will defend my character and my integrity without making any compromise. I, therefore, disagree with any characterization of wrongdoing, and wait the outcome of an audit. In moving forward, I congratulate the incoming acting commissioners on their preferment!”
For Atty. Yealue, he argued that his suspension also brings a form of punishment and that government has not conducted any formal investigation to determine his violation.
He said issue of the suspension without investigation is a violation of his right to due process and that the Act creating the Governance Commission of 2007 had no provision for suspending its tenure officials.
Instead, he noted that it speaks mainly of removal from office, which intended to preserve their independence, but that the decision against him was wrong.
The informant said, under the law, hearsay is not admissible before any court of competent jurisdiction and that the letter served him indicated hearsay.
Therefore, he prayed the court to grant his Bill of information, order and immediate halt on his suspension and have him reinstated and as well order the Executive to appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the Judgement of the Supreme Court.
However, the Supreme Court, after reviewing the Bill of Information declined to issue the requests from both the suspended officials of LTA and Governance Commission.
