Monrovia – What was unacceptable under the government led by former President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf government appears to be acceptable for the current government, which was very critical of Sirleaf’s reign and ultimately succeeded her.
Report by Rodney D. Sieh, [email protected]
Dogged by a stinging controversy regarding reports of his purchase of a US$30 million presidential jet, President George Manneh Weah on Saturday sought to dispel the speculations, amid growing criticisms and what his office described as “public insinuations concerning the alleged purchase of a private jet by the government”.
‘Boost my morale too’
An Executive Mansion statement quoted President Weah: “The airplane they are talking about is for my friend, who is the manager of a big company in Burkina Faso. He told me to use it anytime I want to travel because he has seen me use planes owned by Ivory Coast and others. He wants me to use a plane that is not labeled to boost my morale too.”
Executive Mansion states that President Weah made the clarification when spoke last Friday at the Foreign Ministry where he presented two buses to the Ministry of State for Presidential Affairs for use by employees.
The President clarified that the claims that the plane was bought by the government are far from reality, as he said the government has greater priorities to better the lives of the Liberian people than to commit $30 million (Thirty Million United States Dollars) to purchase a private jet.
The President’s office quotes him, “The airplane issue is causing problem. We don’t have a bus; how will we buy a $30 million plane? Where do they get this kind of news from? It is not possible for us to buy a plane for $30 million; we are just coming to office”, the President quipped.
Presidential Press Secretary Sam Mannah told FrontPageAfrica a day earlier that the plane is a private plane being provided to the President to facilitate his travels. “It is not owned by the President; neither is it a chartered plane. We have been blessed to have a President who has many friends.”
While the president failed to disclose the name of the friend who gave him the jet to use whenever he is traveling, the controversy is resurrecting similarities to his predecessor, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf who had her share of scrutiny during the last twelve years.
Remember When? EJS Redux
In April 2011, former President Sirleaf came under fire when she has presented a check of US$25,000 by Mr. Peter Bayliss, manager of a Grand Bassa-based LIBINIC Oil Palm Inc.
The offer was made in the presence of guests during Sirleaf’s visit to Palm Bay to inaugurate the company’s new multi-million-dollar palm oil mill.
Prior to that, a visibly irritated Sirleaf took offense to the gesture and declared: “I don’t even want to know how much is in this envelop. In fact, I am permitted to receive neither cheque nor cash from any concession company. So, use it for the Bassa women market project, after that you can build another one.”
The Government of Liberia and LIBINIC, on December 31, 2007, signed a 50-year Concession Agreement granting LIBINIC rights to operate on 34,500 acres in New Cess, Grand Bassa County.
Mr. Bayliss said at the time: “We would like to make a small donation on behalf of the board of Equatorial Palm Oil to you and to your market women’s foundation and we hope that you will put the money to good use and that it will help to build some of the extra parts of the development puzzle that you are putting together.”
When Bayliss concluded his statement, former President Sirleaf stood up in response by posing a challenge to the company, and asked them to work along with then Superintendent of the county Julia Duncan Cassell to complete an unfinished market building for the women of the county with what is contained in the envelope and also suggested that a second market building be added to the project.
Prior to that, a visibly irritated Sirleaf took offense to the gesture and declared: “I don’t even want to know how much is in this envelop. In fact, I am permitted to receive neither cheque nor cash from any concession company. So, use it for the Bassa women market project, after that you can build another one.”
Despite Sirleaf’s public refusal of the gesture, the British manager of LIBINIC, took to the podium to say: “Madam President, this is a gesture from us to assist your market project and we hope that you use it wisely.”
Further, Sirleaf was also criticized for using the plane belong to Oranto, the controversial company that won and sold block 13 to Chevron. Additionally, she was questioned for using the plane belonging to the brother of the former President of Ghana, Mohama at the time when Mr. Mohama was pursuing contracts and concession opportunities in Liberia.
Liberian and international anti-bribery laws
The issue of the presidency receiving gifts from foreign companies or individuals is not only a violation the code of conduct regarding public officials but also could be a breach of laws in some western countries, notably UK Bribery Act 2010 (the “Bribery Act”) and the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
CODE OF CONDUCT, SECTION 9.1 STATES: “Public Officials and Employees of Government shall not receive nor encourage the giving of any form of bribe or casual gift in connection with the performance of his or her official duties, whether for himself or herself or members of his or her family or any other benefits that could have any influence on his or her professional approach to issues and the discharge of his or her official duties. This shall not include gifts given during traditional ceremonies and celebrations, and fees paid for Lobbying. The Legislature shall enact laws for the regulation of lobbying activities.”
The US FCPA forbids to the giving of gifts of any value to foreign officials of government, as means to obtain favors or influence the official actions of foreign government officials. The US Congress enacted the FCPA to bring a halt to the bribery of foreign officials and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the American business system.
The FCPA came into play as a result of the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission investigations in the mid-1970s, over 400 U.S. companies admitted making questionable or illegal payments in excess of $300 million to foreign government officials, politicians, and political parties. The abuses ran the gamut from bribery of high foreign officials to secure some type of favorable action by a foreign government to so-called facilitating payments that were made to ensure that government functionaries discharged certain ministerial or clerical duties.
The Act was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on December 19, 1977, and amended in 1998 by the International Anti-Bribery Act of 1998 which was designed to implement the anti-bribery conventions of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
The Bribery Act is in some respects similar to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The scope of the Bribery Act is wider than that of the FCPA in three major respects. First, unlike the FCPA which applies only to the corruption of foreign officials, the Bribery Act includes bribes offered or given to any person. Secondly, although the Bribery Act contains a stand-alone offense of bribing a foreign public official, this offense does not (unlike the FCPA bribery offense) require a corrupt intent on the part of the briber. And lastly, it is an offense under the Bribery Act to request, to agree to receive, or to accept a bribe. The FCPA, on the other hand, applies only to persons giving or offering a bribe and not to those accepting one.
Prior to that, a visibly irritated Sirleaf took offense to the gesture and declared: “I don’t even want to know how much is in this envelop. In fact, I am permitted to receive neither cheque nor cash from any concession company. So, use it for the Bassa women market project, after that you can build another one.”
Because of the cross-jurisdiction effect of corruption through bribery, both the FCPA and UK Bribery Act can extend to companies and individuals with commercial ties to the US and UK. “Just because someone or a business is not a UK or US based, these two laws can still reach and grab them,” says an international anticorruption expert, adding “we have seen foreigners and foreign business get prosecuted in US or UK under these laws,”
Critics Want to Know ‘The Friend’
At the time of the Sirleaf scandal, LIBINIC Oil Palm Inc moved to dismiss suggestions that its gesture was a breach of the FCPA. LIBINICO insisted that its action was not in breach of bribery but rather made publicly to show that the company was transparent and was making a public donation in recognition and appreciation of the president’s development efforts, especially her initiatives and programs that target and benefit Liberian women and children. The company also said that the donation was part of its corporate social responsibility to honor the more than 200 ordinary Liberian women who work for the company in various capacities.
In the case of President Weah, many critics are pounding on his refusal to make public the name of the businessman, ‘friend’ he says has offered him a plane to use at his disposal.
the President in his own defense has said that buying a plane for the country will not be a bad idea, but such plane will be for commercial purposes to take Liberians to and from the country, stressing “But the first plane will not be private.”
President Weah went on to remind Liberians that he is a celebrity who has so many friends that are willing to help him in whatever way they can, adding that when someone decides to help him should not be an issue; as in the case of the private jet, which many have argued of such significant value to be given for “free”.
The lack of a name attached to the gift is raising more questions than answers with many wondering whether some strings may be attached to the businessman’s gesture to the Liberian President, especially amid what FrontPageAfrica has been gathering that a firm from Burkina Faso may be lobbying to win road construction contracts from the Weah administration’s pending southeast road project.
While supporters of President Weah have been taking to social media to defend his response and acknowledgment of receiving a gift from a foreign businessman, Sirleaf did not have it so easy. Both the then opposition, Congress for Democratic Change and the Liberty Party took offense to the gesture made to Sireaf.
Israel Akinsanya, who was chairman of the Liberty Party at the time charged: “The envelope is evidence of an attempt to commit a crime—bribery or at least illegal gratuity! The President is said to have rejected the money, but who currently has it? Has it been deposited into government treasury or returned to LIBINIC? Because if an agent of the President is in possession of that envelope, then the President did not reject the money; the President constructively received the check. Has the Manager been arrested for attempting to bribe the President or for offering illegal gratuity to the Head of our Government?”
Akinsanya is currently a member of the Weah administration following his recent appointment as Commissioner for Government and Consumer Affairs at the Liberia Telecommunications Authority.
Akinsanya was critical of Sirleaf at the time, saying: “So what did the President do? She directed that the check be turned over to the Superintendent of Grand Bassa County, Julia Ducan Cassel, who happens to be the President’s personal friend and a senior executive of Unity Party, for subsequent disbursement. Superintendent Cassel has been indicted by various government audits, none of which has been acted upon by the Sirleaf administration. She may therefore not be a fit custodian of the “rejected” money.”
Code Frowns on Gifts & Tokens
Amid mounting questions lingering over the gift to President Weah, constitutional scholars and historians see the gesture as a clear violation of the code of conduct regarding “Token Gifts”.
Section 9.2 of the Code states: Any token gift received by Public Officials and Employees of Government must be declared, within a reasonable time not exceeding seven (7) days, to the appropriate authority that shall decide whether the gift item should be retained by the Public Official or Employee of Government or whether the gift should be surrendered to Government. Public Officials and Employees of Government who surrender a token gift must demand a receipt from the appropriate recipient or depository.
The fact that the President’s office failed to make such disclosure public and only did after it became public is raising more scrutiny over the government’s repeated defiance of existing laws and the exercise of transparency and accountability.
SECTION 9.4 UNDER, Gifts and Offers intended to Induce or Influence under the code of conduct makes this much clear: “Every Public Official and Employee of Government shall report to his or her head of institution any circumstances where a benefit or gift was offered or made regardless of whether the benefit or gift was accepted, especially where the public servant feels that such circumstances constituted attempts to influence his or her official action/decision. In reporting, the Public Official or Employee of Government shall disclose the source of such an offer.”
For now, President Weah’s office has not said who the friend is that has offered him a plane, a gift many reasonable prudent person will conclude is of significant value. In the case of former President Sirleaf, the public had the luxury of knowing about the gesture because it was made in public but even after her denial and rejection of the envelope, the administration of the former president struggled to explain the embarrassment.
Norris Tweh, then a Deputy Minister for Administration at the Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism (MICAT), Norris Tweh termed it as an envelope that has nothing to do with the violation of Liberian laws.
Addressing the Ministry’s regular press briefing on Thursday, Minister Tweh said the envelope presented by Peter Bayliss, General Manager of Equatorial Oil Palm- LIBINICO was not an act of bribery under the laws of the Republic, because it was done in a public gathering. “This can never be a bribe. At no time our president will receive bribe. To suggest that our president received bribe is a violation. It’s not a violation because our president took an oath and she can never be bribed.”
A Tale of Two Promises
Both President Weah and Sirleaf took public oath at their inaugurations.
In January 2006, Sirleaf said: “Today, I renew this pledge. Corruption, under my Administration, will be the major public enemy. We will confront it. We will fight it. Any member of my Administration who sees this affirmation as mere posturing or yet another attempt by another Liberian leader to play to the gallery on this grave issue should think twice. In this respect, I will lead by example. I will expect and demand that everyone serving in my Administration leads by example. The first testament of how my Administration will tackle public service corruption will be that everyone appointed to high positions of public trust, such as in the Cabinet and heads of public corporations, will be required to declare their assets. I will be the first to comply, and I will call upon the Honorable Speaker and President Pro-Temps to say that they comply.”
In the case of the President Weah, he vowed in January, that the overwhelming mandate he received from the Liberian people is a mandate to end corruption in public service.
“I promise to deliver on this mandate. As officials of Government, It is time to put the interest of our people above our own selfish interests. It is time to be honest with our people. Though corruption is a habit amongst our people, we must end it. We must pay civil servants a living wage, so that corruption is not an excuse for taking what is not theirs. Those who do not refrain from enriching themselves at the expense of the people – the law will take its course. I say today that you will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”
While some would argue it is too soon to judge Weah’ s administration, it is no doubt showing that many of the past vices have that have hinder prosperity for all Liberians are continuing.
Recapping recent events
FrontpageAfrica reported that President Weah has not declared his assets, as required by the Code of Conduct. Because he has not declared his assets, nearly all appointed officials have also followed his path and refused to declare assets, even though the Liberian Anticorruption Commission has asked them to do so.
In the midst of the refusal to declare his assets, President Weah demolished his homes to rebuild them as “mansions” benefiting his stature as a President of Liberia. Like his predecessors and other infamous African Presidents known for “looting” their countries, the President wife established recently the ‘Clar Weah Foundation’ to seek funding to assist Liberian girls and women, just as the former presidents and their families have established foundation and generated significant amounts through the foundations without the benefit of public disclosures.
Like with previous “first families” Liberians do not know the names of individuals and businesses donating to the foundations, a standard of disclosure to avoid conflict of interest.
Putting or positioning family members in lucrative government posts, either directly or indirectly has been a long standing practices of Liberian Presidents, where these family members are able to extra rent from the state without much fear of punishment. Additionally, the patronage system has been continued under the Weah administration. FrongpageAfrica has published several articles in which officials of the President Weah’s CDC have written various agencies and instrumentalities of government to replace certain civil servants with partisans of the CDC.