Someone at the Ministry of Justice ought to take the hit for shutting the doors of the Independent Newspaper without a court order. That action, at the bare minimum, amounts to a dereliction of the commitment to uphold the law, at the maximum, is an infringement of that very law. Administratively, the obvious candidate for that hit is the head of the ministry, the Justice minister, who is also the Attorney General of Liberia.
However, it appears that Liberia’s Solicitor General Tiawan Gonlgoe has thrust himself in the spotlight as the de facto head at the ministry; in him does exit its legal and political mainstay. Therefore, his statement that the newspaper closure is consistent with the law puts him in the running as a candidate in "waiting" for the hit. That statement suffered its latest defeat last Thursday when President Ellen Sirleaf declared:“[The] police was wrong to shut down the Independent Newspaper in the absence of a court order.” That disagreement is a hit of itself.
Tiawan Gongloe has an impressive resume as one of Liberia’s finest human rights lawyers. In 2003, he made headlines around the world when images of his beating while serving in Charles Taylor’s dungeon made the front pages of major newspapers. The bodily harm he sustained became a gruesome metaphor for the brutality and cruelty of the Taylor regime.
In 2005, Mr. Gongloe was appointed Liberia’s solicitor general, and the following year, 2006, he made another headline, as the first—perhaps only—solicitor general in the history of Liberia to arrest and handcuff a former president, the same president—Taylor—who ordered his arrest and detention without a court order. Recently, Mr. Gongloe achieved another milestone in his legal profession, when he confirmed the arrest of former interim chairman Gyude Bryant on charges of economic sabotage, according to the Voice of America.
But it seems all of Mr. Gongloe’s impeccable resume may be forever scarred by the manner in which he has addressed the issue of the newspaper closure. And if the Supreme Court follows in the direction of the President and rules in favor of the Independent, it would be the final nail in the coffin of Mr. Gongloe’s tenure as solicitor general of Liberia.
If that happens, it would be a disappointment to many, including myself, who respect and admire him for the temerity and audacity he demonstrated in raising the awareness of human rights abuses under Taylor. For Mr. Gongloe to appear now as the one denying that very freedom he fought to ensure under Taylor has to be sending a chill down the spine of those who expect him, if anything, to err on the side of the law.
The solicitor general office is the second highest legal counsel for the government of Liberia. Its responsibilities include such functions as providing legal advice and representation for the government in all legal matters. Though by comparison the solicitor general position is second to the Attorney General position of the United States in terms of authority, the political and legal bent Mr. Gongloe brings to this position, warrants comparing him to Mr. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, of the U.S. government.
Like Mr. Gongloe, Mr. Gonzales is under fire for the manner in which his office fired eight U.S. attorneys. In his public statements, Mr. Gonzales said that he was not involved in discussions prior to the firing, but evidence suggests the contrary. This has prompted calls from some Republicans and Democrats in Congress for Mr. Gonzales to step down, citing incompetence and lack of confidence in his ability to continue as the nation’s top lawyer.
Interestingly, Messrs Gongloe and Gonzales have a few things in common, which, when put together, would make for an entertaining comparison, if not a very serious one. For example, the two share the same three first letters in their last name: "Gon." They both were trained at Harvard. Mr. Gongloe was at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, while Mr. Gonzales received his law degree from Harvard Law School. And both of them currently serve presidents who were themselves educated at Harvard.
So, that these two supposedly smart and intelligent legal minds are under attack for apparently making decisions, which call into question their ability and competence, and could probably lead to their firing or resignation, is a cause for concern.
Mr. Gongloe faces a more uncertain future of the two. The fact that his boss disagreed with him in such public manner shows limited support, so much so that if it comes down to a decision as to whether he should continue or take the hit, that disagreement would serve a basis for the latter.
However, Mr. Gongloe’s partner in trouble, Mr. Gonzales, has been shown a lot of support from President Bush, which means calls for his firing will be like “wasting water on dog back,” as we love to say in Liberia, except more disturbing evidence and contradictions are reviewed.
In government as well as in many management positions, high profile public servants should thrive to occupy the space that guarantees the support of their boss-- essentially the space in which Mr. Gonzales now seems to occupy in the Bush administration. That can be the grey area that allows you to remain for the long haul instead of taking the hit.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
Who Should Become Speaker
Today, March 14, 2007, is the one month anniversary of the resignation of former speaker Edwin Snowe. It seems a long time given the many things that have happened in Liberia. Anytime from now, pending the conclusion of deliberations as to the constitutional procedure in replacing a speaker, a motion may be made by one of the 64 members of the House of Representatives for an election or the ascendancy of a new speaker. Whatever happens, that speaker is expected to come from the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC), the party with the majority--16 in total-- and currently enjoys that position in acting Speaker Rep. Mulbah Tokpah.
To many, that CDC produces the next speaker is as interesting as who the individual actually is. That interest is driven in part by the allegation of bribery levied by former speaker Snowe, who accused some lawmakers as well as officials connected to the Executive Mansion as the progenitors of what is dubed "the unsuccessful removal attempt."
Predictably, if there is voting, a CDC candidate will win and catapult the party as the leading political opposition to the Unity Party-led government, finally correcting a once bizarre political configuration in our presidential system in which an independent held the speaker position.
Reportedly, three men are at the center of the caucusing for this position--acting Speaker Tokpah, Rep. ketterkumehn Murray, and Rep. Edward Forh. That one of these men becomes the next speaker is hardly surprising. That none becomes is almost inconceivable; however, legislative politics in Liberia is embedded with a degree of uncertainty and indeterminacy that tends to make prediction such as mine shortsighted.
Of the men, acting Speaker Tokpah has the better chance of landing the job. He has the experience. He also has the the power of incumbency, an advantage that can come handy during election, especially from moderates who may not want the total changing of the guard--not to mention the likely support from those who opposed Snowe's removal.
On the party front, it is in the acting speaker that CDC has the better chance of retaining the speaker position; having 16 of the 64 members is not a comfortable majority, especially in a House where former speaker Snowe and others have called for investigating the allegation of bribery.
In a political democracy, any appearance of a rift among lawmakers from the majority party usually jeopardizes that party's chances of succeeding, whether it is in an election or the passage of a bill. The way the numbers are distributed in the lower House, any rift among lawmakers representing the CDC could ensure it loses out on the speaker position in an election where other parties feed candidates.
In fact, one can sense some sort of rift emerging between the acting speaker and Rep. Murray. Read the acting speaker's interview given to Frontpage Saturday:"My position is clear on that issue and I think the constitution is very clear on this issue. If they want to violate the constitution that's their prerogative, but I am not going to stand with them," Tokpah said.
Assuredly, Rep. Murray is one of the people the acting speaker is vowing not to stand with. The Montserrado County representative is the man leading the charge for electing a new speaker, the one the acting speaker thinks wants to break the law. I don't think Rep. Murray wants to break the law. His contention that the Constitution is unclear as to replacing a speaker is right, but it is counter-intuitive at best because the framers of the constitution imagined that in the event a speaker is removed, incapacitated, etc, the deputy speaker should ascend, or the House should revert to a precedent experience to determine the option that best approximates with the House rules, which would be consistent with the constitution.
Rep. Murray was the presumptive front runner in the race to replace former speaker Snowe. On January 22, 2007, the Frontpage newspaper ran a story that revealed that he was a "wanted" man in the United States for sexual offense. It is actually unclear whether the lawmaker is wanted, but the timing of the story had the effect of bludgeoning any ambition Murray harbored of becoming speaker. Also, former speaker Snowe has implicated him in the bribery fiasco as one of the recipients of the infamous $5,000. But Mr. Murray has denied those allegations.
In his district, Rep Murray faces a threat of impeachment from some citizens, according to the Public Agenda newspaper. But the impeachment threat is as old as Rep. Murray as lasted in the House, making it appears as if it is politically motivated from people with a lingering residual anger carried over from the 2005 election. Despite all this trouble, Rep. Murray does not appear as a man hanging onto his position. But the controversy about him is too plenty for someone who wants to be speaker. His best bet for now is to remain the Chairman of the Executive Committee.
The name Edward Forh has been mentioned several times in connection with the position. But not much is known of him, safe his sturdy opposition to former speaker Snowe. He is most definitely the unknown variable, the one who could be the formidable challenger to the acting speaker in an election. He is a hardliner at best, the one who objected to the inclusion of Rep. Murray on a delegation to the U.S. recently, according to a story in the Public Agenda newspaper.
But he is not without issues. Sources familiar with legislative politics accuse him of being the choice of the Executive Mansion; and therefore would not provide the kind of opposition we saw under Snowe, something that is said to be critical for the system of checks and balances. Even some go so far as to doubt his loyalty to his party, but he does command considerable clout within, especially among those who opposed Snowe. He has been implicated in the bribery scandal, as the one who distributed the cash. But he has denied those allegations as well. After all the theatrics and antics in the lower House, a best case scenario is for him to fight to become the deputy speaker.
Therefore, after all that has beset the lower House in recent times, it is best for the country that acting Speaker Tokpah becomes the next legitimate speaker.
To many, that CDC produces the next speaker is as interesting as who the individual actually is. That interest is driven in part by the allegation of bribery levied by former speaker Snowe, who accused some lawmakers as well as officials connected to the Executive Mansion as the progenitors of what is dubed "the unsuccessful removal attempt."
Predictably, if there is voting, a CDC candidate will win and catapult the party as the leading political opposition to the Unity Party-led government, finally correcting a once bizarre political configuration in our presidential system in which an independent held the speaker position.
Reportedly, three men are at the center of the caucusing for this position--acting Speaker Tokpah, Rep. ketterkumehn Murray, and Rep. Edward Forh. That one of these men becomes the next speaker is hardly surprising. That none becomes is almost inconceivable; however, legislative politics in Liberia is embedded with a degree of uncertainty and indeterminacy that tends to make prediction such as mine shortsighted.
Of the men, acting Speaker Tokpah has the better chance of landing the job. He has the experience. He also has the the power of incumbency, an advantage that can come handy during election, especially from moderates who may not want the total changing of the guard--not to mention the likely support from those who opposed Snowe's removal.
On the party front, it is in the acting speaker that CDC has the better chance of retaining the speaker position; having 16 of the 64 members is not a comfortable majority, especially in a House where former speaker Snowe and others have called for investigating the allegation of bribery.
In a political democracy, any appearance of a rift among lawmakers from the majority party usually jeopardizes that party's chances of succeeding, whether it is in an election or the passage of a bill. The way the numbers are distributed in the lower House, any rift among lawmakers representing the CDC could ensure it loses out on the speaker position in an election where other parties feed candidates.
In fact, one can sense some sort of rift emerging between the acting speaker and Rep. Murray. Read the acting speaker's interview given to Frontpage Saturday:"My position is clear on that issue and I think the constitution is very clear on this issue. If they want to violate the constitution that's their prerogative, but I am not going to stand with them," Tokpah said.
Assuredly, Rep. Murray is one of the people the acting speaker is vowing not to stand with. The Montserrado County representative is the man leading the charge for electing a new speaker, the one the acting speaker thinks wants to break the law. I don't think Rep. Murray wants to break the law. His contention that the Constitution is unclear as to replacing a speaker is right, but it is counter-intuitive at best because the framers of the constitution imagined that in the event a speaker is removed, incapacitated, etc, the deputy speaker should ascend, or the House should revert to a precedent experience to determine the option that best approximates with the House rules, which would be consistent with the constitution.
Rep. Murray was the presumptive front runner in the race to replace former speaker Snowe. On January 22, 2007, the Frontpage newspaper ran a story that revealed that he was a "wanted" man in the United States for sexual offense. It is actually unclear whether the lawmaker is wanted, but the timing of the story had the effect of bludgeoning any ambition Murray harbored of becoming speaker. Also, former speaker Snowe has implicated him in the bribery fiasco as one of the recipients of the infamous $5,000. But Mr. Murray has denied those allegations.
In his district, Rep Murray faces a threat of impeachment from some citizens, according to the Public Agenda newspaper. But the impeachment threat is as old as Rep. Murray as lasted in the House, making it appears as if it is politically motivated from people with a lingering residual anger carried over from the 2005 election. Despite all this trouble, Rep. Murray does not appear as a man hanging onto his position. But the controversy about him is too plenty for someone who wants to be speaker. His best bet for now is to remain the Chairman of the Executive Committee.
The name Edward Forh has been mentioned several times in connection with the position. But not much is known of him, safe his sturdy opposition to former speaker Snowe. He is most definitely the unknown variable, the one who could be the formidable challenger to the acting speaker in an election. He is a hardliner at best, the one who objected to the inclusion of Rep. Murray on a delegation to the U.S. recently, according to a story in the Public Agenda newspaper.
But he is not without issues. Sources familiar with legislative politics accuse him of being the choice of the Executive Mansion; and therefore would not provide the kind of opposition we saw under Snowe, something that is said to be critical for the system of checks and balances. Even some go so far as to doubt his loyalty to his party, but he does command considerable clout within, especially among those who opposed Snowe. He has been implicated in the bribery scandal, as the one who distributed the cash. But he has denied those allegations as well. After all the theatrics and antics in the lower House, a best case scenario is for him to fight to become the deputy speaker.
Therefore, after all that has beset the lower House in recent times, it is best for the country that acting Speaker Tokpah becomes the next legitimate speaker.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
And The Oscar Goes To...
Each time Hollywood gives the Oscar to a winner for the first time, history is made on the night, and TV watchers like myself relish to see the moment when the winner ascends the podium to give the "Thank You" speech. Protocol demands that the speech remain under 60 seconds, but this can pose a challenge for first-time winners--remember Halle Berry's bizarre lip-locking with Russell Crowe when she made history as the first black woman to win an Oscar, but then forgetting to thank her co-star Billy Bob Thornton.
So all week I was worried how Djimon Hounsou, the male model turned actor who left his native Benin at age 13, wandered the streets of Paris as a vagrant, before he was discovered by fashion designer Thierry Mugler, would handle his "Thank You" speech if he won, becoming the first male African to win the Oscar. "Blood Diamond," the movie he co-starred in alongside Leonardo DiCaprio, was nominated for five Academic Awards, including the nomination for best supporting actor in a Hollywood drama, for which Djimon was nominated.
But "Blood Diamond" was shut out in all categories. Hollywood missed a glorious chance to make history by failing to give Djimon the award. Well, forget the Oscar, because Djimon's portrayal in the movie of Solomon Vandy, the Mende fisherman who loses his son and is forced to work in a diamond field by the ragtag Revolution United Front(RUF), has helped convinced the world that what went on in Sierra Leone-- and Liberia as well-- was fuelled, in large part, by the the West's voracious obsession for diamonds or "blood diamonds."
Even though Djimon did not win the Oscar, of which I am so disappointed, the tale and intrigues that drive the plot of "Blood Diamond" is an all too familiar experience of how innocent lives are lost in the crossfire, becoming the collateral damage in conflicts where mercenaries served as the middle-man between local warring groups and multinationals desperately seeking to benefit from the spoils of war.
As a consequence, "Blood Diamond will, perhaps, play a significant role in helping to implement the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), which is designed to certify the origin of diamonds from sources devoid of conflict. Many countries, including Liberia, have affixed their signatures to this document, which was established in 2002 to prevent rival rebel groups from financing their war aims from diamonds.
To this end, we must congratulate Hollywood, and especially director Edward Zwick, for masterminding the telling of a story against the backdrop of a civil war where a local farmer, a diamond smuggler, and a relentless journalist are brought together, each wanting to outsmart the other. In the end, what you have is a classical movie. For me , the Oscar goes to Djimon Hounsou to say the least.
So all week I was worried how Djimon Hounsou, the male model turned actor who left his native Benin at age 13, wandered the streets of Paris as a vagrant, before he was discovered by fashion designer Thierry Mugler, would handle his "Thank You" speech if he won, becoming the first male African to win the Oscar. "Blood Diamond," the movie he co-starred in alongside Leonardo DiCaprio, was nominated for five Academic Awards, including the nomination for best supporting actor in a Hollywood drama, for which Djimon was nominated.
But "Blood Diamond" was shut out in all categories. Hollywood missed a glorious chance to make history by failing to give Djimon the award. Well, forget the Oscar, because Djimon's portrayal in the movie of Solomon Vandy, the Mende fisherman who loses his son and is forced to work in a diamond field by the ragtag Revolution United Front(RUF), has helped convinced the world that what went on in Sierra Leone-- and Liberia as well-- was fuelled, in large part, by the the West's voracious obsession for diamonds or "blood diamonds."
Even though Djimon did not win the Oscar, of which I am so disappointed, the tale and intrigues that drive the plot of "Blood Diamond" is an all too familiar experience of how innocent lives are lost in the crossfire, becoming the collateral damage in conflicts where mercenaries served as the middle-man between local warring groups and multinationals desperately seeking to benefit from the spoils of war.
As a consequence, "Blood Diamond will, perhaps, play a significant role in helping to implement the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), which is designed to certify the origin of diamonds from sources devoid of conflict. Many countries, including Liberia, have affixed their signatures to this document, which was established in 2002 to prevent rival rebel groups from financing their war aims from diamonds.
To this end, we must congratulate Hollywood, and especially director Edward Zwick, for masterminding the telling of a story against the backdrop of a civil war where a local farmer, a diamond smuggler, and a relentless journalist are brought together, each wanting to outsmart the other. In the end, what you have is a classical movie. For me , the Oscar goes to Djimon Hounsou to say the least.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Willis Knuckles would be out if he were a Nigerian Minister of State
I read on the BBC last week that the Nigerian parliament is holding a public debate intended to gather support for a proposed bill that will officially ban the practice of homosexuality in that country. If this succeeds, Nigeria would have taken a bold legal stance against homosexuality on the continent.
While our Nigerian brothers and sisters were debating the illegality of homosexuality over the weekend, in such places as Abuja, Lagos, and elsewhere, their cousins to the west, in Liberia, awoke to a photographic embarrassment in which their Minister of State Willis Knuckles poses as a sexual protagonist in an orgy with two women.
Expectedly, Minister Knuckles has come out to admit that he is the the one in the picture, offering apologies to his wife, family, friends, the President and to the Republic for the embarrassment his action has caused. But the minister stopped short of the wise, expected and prudent action--resignation.
His refusal to step down after embarrassing the nation makes me wonder what would have happened if this had been in Nigeria. I am just curious to know what would the head of the Nigerian Anglican Church, Archbisphop Peter Jasper Akinnola, who broke away from the Episcopal Church of the United States over the ordination of gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson, have said to President Olusegun Obasanjo if one of his ministers had been caught in such gross sexual indecency? I guess Bishop Akinnole would not have had to say anything because that minister would have resigned on his own accord, fearing the rebuke of the Nigerian public that has little patience and tolerance for such deviant sexual depravity seeming so disrespectful of African women.
I even wonder whether President Obasanjo would have waited after Friday's prayers to be pressured by the late Sultan of Sokoto Alhaji Mohammadu Maccido, former spiritual leader of Nigeria's 70 million Muslims. You bet not!
Fellow Liberians, I am not judging Mr. Knuckles here, neither should anyone. He made a terrible mistake and has apologized and must be forgiven-- he's human. I'm no moral compass for the Tera Connors, the Ted Haggards, and the Anna Nicole Smiths of this world. Neither am I one of the Pharisees who took it upon himself to stone the woman caught in the act of adultery.
But I have a right to demand the resignation of a minister whose sexual misconduct has brought disrepute to his office, shame to the presidency, and indignity to the nation. You have that same right as well. If Minister Knuckles were a private citizen, we would not be having this conversation. But as a public figure, he can not be caught in such an act and still expect to remain in his position.
No government official or public figure should get away with this type of behavior in our democracy. In an era where Liberians hope to raise the profile of the Liberian woman in all spheres of Liberian life, Minister Knuckles' refusal to resign undermines this effort. I call on Madam Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberia's and Africa's first female President, to request the resignation of the disgraced minister, sparing her office, the women of Liberia, and the entire country the emotional pain and embarrassment of Minister Knuckles' behavior.
If the president can not act, then we need to hear the voices of the pastors, the bishops, the imams, who nourish the moral direction of the state. What is Pastor Dr. Sam Reeves of Providence Baptist Church saying? Is Pastor Reverend Trokon Lanford of Effort Baptist Church appalled by Mr. Knuckles' act? I want to know whether Pastor Wolo M. Belleh of the Bethel Cathedral of Hope will be requesting the minister's resignation in this Sunday's sermon. There has to be somebody in that ecumenical body who will raise a loud voice and tell Minister Knuckles: "We love you and forgive you, but you ought to step down."
But if our Christian community fails us in this regard, our Islamic conscience must not let us down. Are Imams Mohammed Umaru Sheriff and Imam Vangomor Tully of the the Supreme Muslim Council ready to take a stand?
Like their Nigerian counterparts, Liberian Christian and Muslim leaders must never allow such precedent, where a minister will be involved in a sexual debauchery and refuse to resign.
Is there any role for civil society, the media and opposition political parties in this scandal? Shouldn't they compel the resignation of the minister? Are newspapers and radio stations prepared to sanction the executive until Mr. Knuckles leaves the Ministry of State?
If anything, I know one group of people who will inevitably issue a call for resignation-- the men and women of the University of Liberia. I expect SUP, SIM and STUDA to demand the resignation of the minister.
I admire the Nigerians, and I know exactly what they would do in this situation. I know what they would say to President Obasanjo. They would shout in Hausa, Yoruba, Ibo, and English and demand the resignation of such a minister. Can my native Liberia do the same?
While our Nigerian brothers and sisters were debating the illegality of homosexuality over the weekend, in such places as Abuja, Lagos, and elsewhere, their cousins to the west, in Liberia, awoke to a photographic embarrassment in which their Minister of State Willis Knuckles poses as a sexual protagonist in an orgy with two women.
Expectedly, Minister Knuckles has come out to admit that he is the the one in the picture, offering apologies to his wife, family, friends, the President and to the Republic for the embarrassment his action has caused. But the minister stopped short of the wise, expected and prudent action--resignation.
His refusal to step down after embarrassing the nation makes me wonder what would have happened if this had been in Nigeria. I am just curious to know what would the head of the Nigerian Anglican Church, Archbisphop Peter Jasper Akinnola, who broke away from the Episcopal Church of the United States over the ordination of gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson, have said to President Olusegun Obasanjo if one of his ministers had been caught in such gross sexual indecency? I guess Bishop Akinnole would not have had to say anything because that minister would have resigned on his own accord, fearing the rebuke of the Nigerian public that has little patience and tolerance for such deviant sexual depravity seeming so disrespectful of African women.
I even wonder whether President Obasanjo would have waited after Friday's prayers to be pressured by the late Sultan of Sokoto Alhaji Mohammadu Maccido, former spiritual leader of Nigeria's 70 million Muslims. You bet not!
Fellow Liberians, I am not judging Mr. Knuckles here, neither should anyone. He made a terrible mistake and has apologized and must be forgiven-- he's human. I'm no moral compass for the Tera Connors, the Ted Haggards, and the Anna Nicole Smiths of this world. Neither am I one of the Pharisees who took it upon himself to stone the woman caught in the act of adultery.
But I have a right to demand the resignation of a minister whose sexual misconduct has brought disrepute to his office, shame to the presidency, and indignity to the nation. You have that same right as well. If Minister Knuckles were a private citizen, we would not be having this conversation. But as a public figure, he can not be caught in such an act and still expect to remain in his position.
No government official or public figure should get away with this type of behavior in our democracy. In an era where Liberians hope to raise the profile of the Liberian woman in all spheres of Liberian life, Minister Knuckles' refusal to resign undermines this effort. I call on Madam Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberia's and Africa's first female President, to request the resignation of the disgraced minister, sparing her office, the women of Liberia, and the entire country the emotional pain and embarrassment of Minister Knuckles' behavior.
If the president can not act, then we need to hear the voices of the pastors, the bishops, the imams, who nourish the moral direction of the state. What is Pastor Dr. Sam Reeves of Providence Baptist Church saying? Is Pastor Reverend Trokon Lanford of Effort Baptist Church appalled by Mr. Knuckles' act? I want to know whether Pastor Wolo M. Belleh of the Bethel Cathedral of Hope will be requesting the minister's resignation in this Sunday's sermon. There has to be somebody in that ecumenical body who will raise a loud voice and tell Minister Knuckles: "We love you and forgive you, but you ought to step down."
But if our Christian community fails us in this regard, our Islamic conscience must not let us down. Are Imams Mohammed Umaru Sheriff and Imam Vangomor Tully of the the Supreme Muslim Council ready to take a stand?
Like their Nigerian counterparts, Liberian Christian and Muslim leaders must never allow such precedent, where a minister will be involved in a sexual debauchery and refuse to resign.
Is there any role for civil society, the media and opposition political parties in this scandal? Shouldn't they compel the resignation of the minister? Are newspapers and radio stations prepared to sanction the executive until Mr. Knuckles leaves the Ministry of State?
If anything, I know one group of people who will inevitably issue a call for resignation-- the men and women of the University of Liberia. I expect SUP, SIM and STUDA to demand the resignation of the minister.
I admire the Nigerians, and I know exactly what they would do in this situation. I know what they would say to President Obasanjo. They would shout in Hausa, Yoruba, Ibo, and English and demand the resignation of such a minister. Can my native Liberia do the same?
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The consequences of wrong choices in politics
Edwin Snowe, Speaker of the House of Representatives in Liberia, has thrown in the towel, but not without putting on a strong show that may suggest that he won the fight. He took as many embarrassing punches against the ropes, went down in the early rounds, but managed in each round to use his jibs so effectively that the judges, in the end, ruled that many of those punches were way below the belt. Therefore, they disqualified his opponents, leaving the impression that he won the fight.
Mr. Snowe also seems to have won the public support and sympathy, thanks in large part to his adversaries' poorly conceived and batched plan to knock him out. Once it backfired, Mr.Snowe played the victim's card well. And by resigning today, his popularity may soar among his supporters and even those who think politics--not anything he did or didn't do--ignited the fight.
That a man who is under serious allegation of corruption and may soon be charged by the Liberian government could be going home from now onwards to a heroic welcome in his district and elsewhere is utterly unbelievable. But this isn't the first, second, or third time this is happening in our politics. We saw it under Charles Taylor. Many of the former warlords used it. Mr. Snowe is just the latest beneficiary among the many before him to enjoy this unfounded public support.
Now that the crisis in the first branch is over, it is important to reflect upon why this scenarios always recurs in our politics. As a nation, we continue to suffer the consequences of wrong choices. Why if Taylor had not led the revolution? The outcome would have been probably different.To begin with, Taylor represented so many wrongs; he was charged with corruption, had a questionable past, but strangely enough, he was given the leadership in the NPFL. The history that follows after Taylor should remind us of the serious consequences of wrong choices in politics.
Fast-forward to 2006, after an important election that ended years of civil war, the in-coming House members had to choose a leader. Instead, they settled for Mr. Snowe as Speaker, ignoring accusations upon accusations that as head of the Liberia Petroleum Refining Company (LPRC), Mr. Snowe misappropriated thousands, if not millions of dollars. By attempting to remove him as speaker, most of the freshmen members who elected him, were trying to correct a previous mistake of electing him, but this could have plunged the nation into serious chaos and confusion.
Under any condition--whether a choice may have a profound deleterious consequence on the nation or not, as in the case with Taylor leading the revolution, or a relatively modest political hiccup as the Snowe saga--deciding what choice to make must be weighed heavily against immediate and future consequences to the nation. In fact, such a choice, I believe, is easier when it involves a small number of privileged group of people, say, lawmakers gathering to elect a new leadership, which members of the House will soon do, or certain powerful political elites deciding who should lead a major political event, say, the group that decided on Taylor leading the revolution in 1989. On the other hand, the choice is hardest when it is open-ended as in a general election for president of the nation. The 1997 election could be cited as an example.
Thus, the resignation of Speaker Snowe presents members of the House with another chance to make amends with the past, and to this end, the House must elect a speaker by avoiding the unnecessary closed-door desultory negotiations by bringing the matter to the floor for open debate. Anyone seeking the position must be made to earn it by the quality of debate, ability to build consensus among the various parties; he or she must be made to show evidence of sound leadership, must be an individual who commands respect, a person of integrity, and a one who can represent the people of Liberia in the eyes of the world.
It is my conviction that anyone who emerges out of this type of vetting process would bring some credibility and respect to the House. He or she will earn the admonition of his colleagues. But more importantly, members of the House, by electing such a speaker, would be vindicated by their own staff, by their peers in the Senate, members of the executive branch, their constituents, and the Liberian population both home and abroad. Only by subjecting potential candidates to this type of rigor would House members be thoughtfully considering the consequences of their choice.
Mr. Snowe also seems to have won the public support and sympathy, thanks in large part to his adversaries' poorly conceived and batched plan to knock him out. Once it backfired, Mr.Snowe played the victim's card well. And by resigning today, his popularity may soar among his supporters and even those who think politics--not anything he did or didn't do--ignited the fight.
That a man who is under serious allegation of corruption and may soon be charged by the Liberian government could be going home from now onwards to a heroic welcome in his district and elsewhere is utterly unbelievable. But this isn't the first, second, or third time this is happening in our politics. We saw it under Charles Taylor. Many of the former warlords used it. Mr. Snowe is just the latest beneficiary among the many before him to enjoy this unfounded public support.
Now that the crisis in the first branch is over, it is important to reflect upon why this scenarios always recurs in our politics. As a nation, we continue to suffer the consequences of wrong choices. Why if Taylor had not led the revolution? The outcome would have been probably different.To begin with, Taylor represented so many wrongs; he was charged with corruption, had a questionable past, but strangely enough, he was given the leadership in the NPFL. The history that follows after Taylor should remind us of the serious consequences of wrong choices in politics.
Fast-forward to 2006, after an important election that ended years of civil war, the in-coming House members had to choose a leader. Instead, they settled for Mr. Snowe as Speaker, ignoring accusations upon accusations that as head of the Liberia Petroleum Refining Company (LPRC), Mr. Snowe misappropriated thousands, if not millions of dollars. By attempting to remove him as speaker, most of the freshmen members who elected him, were trying to correct a previous mistake of electing him, but this could have plunged the nation into serious chaos and confusion.
Under any condition--whether a choice may have a profound deleterious consequence on the nation or not, as in the case with Taylor leading the revolution, or a relatively modest political hiccup as the Snowe saga--deciding what choice to make must be weighed heavily against immediate and future consequences to the nation. In fact, such a choice, I believe, is easier when it involves a small number of privileged group of people, say, lawmakers gathering to elect a new leadership, which members of the House will soon do, or certain powerful political elites deciding who should lead a major political event, say, the group that decided on Taylor leading the revolution in 1989. On the other hand, the choice is hardest when it is open-ended as in a general election for president of the nation. The 1997 election could be cited as an example.
Thus, the resignation of Speaker Snowe presents members of the House with another chance to make amends with the past, and to this end, the House must elect a speaker by avoiding the unnecessary closed-door desultory negotiations by bringing the matter to the floor for open debate. Anyone seeking the position must be made to earn it by the quality of debate, ability to build consensus among the various parties; he or she must be made to show evidence of sound leadership, must be an individual who commands respect, a person of integrity, and a one who can represent the people of Liberia in the eyes of the world.
It is my conviction that anyone who emerges out of this type of vetting process would bring some credibility and respect to the House. He or she will earn the admonition of his colleagues. But more importantly, members of the House, by electing such a speaker, would be vindicated by their own staff, by their peers in the Senate, members of the executive branch, their constituents, and the Liberian population both home and abroad. Only by subjecting potential candidates to this type of rigor would House members be thoughtfully considering the consequences of their choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
