Africa-Press – Liberia. The President signs into law the 54 legislature repeal of the LACC 2008 which seeks to dissolve the commission and its entire workforce thereby creating financial and legal implications for the government.
Cllr. Edwin Martin, the executive chairperson of the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC), has threatened to sue the Government of Liberia if President George Weah signs into law an act by the legislature that seeks to re-establish an entirely new anti-graft commission.
The act, passed by the 54th legislature, would simply result in the elimination of all existing LACC workforce, as the existing commission would dissolve, creating serious financial implications for the government, which is already strapped for resources — since the new LACC will require re-staffing as well as payment of existing commissioners and contract staffs for the remainder of their tenures.
The legislature decision, which Martin has labeled ‘unjust’, in a rare critical rebuke, comes after Weah requested in 2021 that the legislature adopt a minor adjustment to the 2008 LACC Act to give the commission direct power to prosecute.
However, the legislature chose to abolish the statute rather than amend it — even though the move granted the re-established LACC direct and immediate Prosecutorial Power, which it presently has, but with restrictions.
“We are taken aback by the conduct of the Legislature to do a restatement of the law which, in itself, is to dissolve, abrogate and negate the relevant and the adequate effectiveness of the 2008 Act,” Martin said in an exclusive interview with the Daily Observer over the weekend.
“I will challenge the new law in court. You cannot dissolve a tenured position to create another. Their action is not only a violation of the law but it provides a signal for a witch-hunt.”
The LACC head stated that the new bill, if signed into law by the President, would never be in the best interests of the country, but only of a small group of people who do not want to see corruption cease or be reduced in Liberia.
He noted that the sole flaw in the LACC Act of 2008 is the absence of prosecutorial authority for the Commission to move to court without the Ministry of Justice’s three-month (90-day) review clause on cases presented by LACC.
“For the Legislature to dissolve the clause that gave us tenure position of five years to say ‘upon the appointment of the new commissioners thorough vetting, the old Commissioners are no more in service,’ leads us to ask the question: why only the LACC’s tenure clause should be tampered with at this time? We will want to know and the court is the right place to deal with this illegal attempt.”
“What happens to Commissioners that were appointed, confirmed, and commissioned to act in tenure? There is a precedent case that was dealt with by the Supreme Court. The Court in that recent case said: ‘Until a tenure position can expire, to dismiss the person without any reasonable cause, will be breaching the law,’” Martin said.
Martin’s criticism and lawsuit threat come as the legislature enacted a so-called amendment to the LACC act, which has been slammed as an effort that undermines the country’s fight against corruption. In the legislation, the 54th Legislature severely reduced the competence of the re-established LACC, contrary to what is allowed for in section 4.1(e) of the Commission’s 2008 Act.
The old law allows the LACC “to cause the freezing of assets of a person or persons being investigated or prosecuted for alleged act or acts of corruption; provided the freezing of asset or assets of any accused person or persons is, at all times, authorized by a prior order or warrant issued by a Court of competent jurisdiction.”
But this is no longer the case, as the legislature waters down said power in section 4.1e by restricting such freeze action to person (s) representing flight risk or those who have fled the bailiwick of the Republic of Liberia — imposing immense constraints and complications in the exercise of said power.
It also violates Article 20 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which requires state parties to act diligently to collect assets obtained by public officials via illegal methods.
In the repeal legislation, the legislature also moves to limit people’s access to information as well as LACC’s openness and responsibility to the public and stakeholders: The New Law (Section 10.9) limits the Commission by imposing unreasonable secrecy, which prevents it from sharing fundamental information with the public about its interactions until an indictment is issued.
Such a clause, according to critics, unjustifiably limits the Commission’s capacity to connect with the public and provide updates on the progress of current investigations, which is more than required for openness, accountability, and other relevant reasons that best serve the public interest.
One such critic, including Martin, has stated that the new legislation is only meant to violate the Liberian people’s right to know and understand the activities of the LACC in prosecuting suspected public officials who are discovered in the act of stealing public assets and resources.
This comes after the legislature had amended Section 11.4 of the LACC 2008 act, which gave the Commission prosecutorial power, but can exercise the same only after 90 days (3 months) if the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) does not act on the case (s) received from the Commission.
Martin then accused the legislature of making such a dangerous “repeal” with the intent of undermining strides being made at LACC to expose alleged corrupt officials and bringing his work to public ridicule.
“Under the 2008 Act, the LACC can sue and be sued too. Once an accused person feels a strong conviction that he or she has been accused falsely, the court is there and the accused can sue LACC. Unlike that, the new law weakens that, thereby making LACC a more controlled entity of government that will have the right even to issue citations only through the court,” he said.
“The new law says we should go through the court and if the court decides to issue a subpoena, that is the decision of the court but when an application is made to the court there must be a hearing for the granting of that application. We feel that the new law is only intended to negate the efficacy of the old law. This is contrary to Part 4 Section 4 point of the 208 act which called for citations in accordance with the law to be issued to any persons under investigation but not otherwise arrested.”
“We see the crafting of the new law as an attempt for the minority few to draw up laws that will benefit them and their selfish interests,” Martin said. “We know we are fighting against them and we are quite aware that they have in abundance public resources, including money to thwart our efforts but we are not deterred. For the common good of our country, we will stand our ground and do what is right.”
Meanwhile, Martin has disclosed that his security is at stake as he plans to challenge the legislation in court if the President signs it since it runs contrary to the tendency of good governance.
“I am no longer feeling safe in this country. I have only one police officer assigned to me and he comes to work at 8 am and leaves for home at 5 pm. Beyond that time, I am vulnerable and it’s only self precaution and God’s grace that are keeping me going,” he said.
Martin added that unlike him, his colleagues in the sub-region have twenty-four-hour daily security personnel assigned to them at the expense of their respective governments.
For More News And Analysis About Liberia Follow Africa-Press
