IPNews-Monrovia,Liberia-1 April 2018: As a global watchdog, research and journalism group, Global Witness has and stands for a good cause in exposing the lack of transparency, accountability, and abuse around the world but having and standing for a good cause is not the same as doing the right things in pursuing that cause, especially when it comes to journalistic and research reporting.
The sustainability of journalism, especially investigative journalism, rests upon a reputation for integrity, ethical conduct, and credibility. This is why in its latest report on Liberia, Global Witness appears to clearly betray the trust of Liberians and perhaps its global audience by reporting and sensationalizing a politically charged mechanized event as ‘findings’ in its Exxon Mobil alleged bribery case in Liberia while the oil giant was securing oil block 13 through the country’s National Oil Company of Liberia (NOCAL).
In Global Witness’s March 2018 report titled “Exxon Liberia” with the subsection, “Monrovia 2013: Awash in Cash,” the largely Africa’s focused international watchdog group made another faulty conclusion and attempts to ruin the reputation of some credible Liberian professionals through baseless and blanket accusations that lack any iota of truth.
The truth of the matter is, Liberia is a very corruption nation and the past Liberian administration led by retired Liberian president Madam Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, according to local Liberian mindset, has been the most corrupt administration since the founding and independence of the country. It is also true that NOCAL was drained and made broke by and through high-level corruption by its management under the chairmanship of Robert A. Sirleaf, son of former president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. It is believed that more than $300 million hundred United States dollars went missing at NOCAL. Investigating and reporting these events would be noteworthy on the part of Global Witness. What is unworthy, though, is when Global Witness would select to pay a blind eye on the real corruption in Liberia and the individuals responsible, and instead attempt to taint the character of credible Liberian individuals on what appears to be a calculated ploy to confuse Liberians and its international readership on the pending work and investigations of the recently appointed ‘Concession Review Committee’ set up by President George Manneh Weah.
There is credible information that former President Sirleaf may have allegedly influenced the Global Witness’s March 2018 Exxon report for several reasons including to ensure that Liberians don’t have a true picture about the stewardship of her son Robert Sirleaf at NOCAL when millions of dollars went missing. By suggesting the names of other respected Liberians, like former Liberian Attorney General/Justice Minister Christiana Tah, who are not only credible and trusted but do enjoy the confidence of Liberians, it would appear that a coverup would have been provided that the real management and leadership of NOCAL can jointly say the allegation by Global Witness is untrue since the character of others would then support that view. And this is exactly what happened.
Another suspicion this latest report proffers is the timing. There are multiple and serious lawsuits relating to Liberia’s past that have been filed. These include the active lawsuit in Boston, Massachusetts, USA against retired Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and others as well as other potential lawsuits such as the one contemplated by the family of the late Burkina Faso’s leader Captain Thomas Sankara against dethroned Burkina Faso’s president Blaise Campoare and Madam Ellen Johnson Sirleaf regarding the alleged murder of Captain Sankara so as to make Burkina Faso a training ground and pave the way for subversive activities in Liberia and neighboring Sierra Leone.
No one disputes Global Witness’s assertion that Liberia is corrupt and that there was corruption at NOCAL. What can clearly be disputed are the mischaracterization of corruption and the naming of some credible individuals in the Exxon report, notably Counselor Tah. Besides, Global Witness has not done any due diligence because, in its letter to Counselor Tah, the organization sought clarification on the “bonus” payment which Counselor Tah received from NOCAL for legally known services provided. Yet, the organization still elected to mention or include her name in its report thereby skewing the real story about the millions of dollars that were mismanaged at NOCAL. Counselor Tah and perhaps a few other Liberians mentioned in the report never receive any bribe because a bonus is not a bribe.
The World Bank in its report titled “Helping Countries Combat Corruption: The Role of the World Bank”, the Bank in dealing with the section, “Corruption and Economic Development” says, “Corruption is a complex phenomenon. Its roots lie deep in bureaucratic and political institutions, and its effect on development varies with country conditions. But while costs may vary and systemic corruption may coexist with strong economic performance, experience suggests that corruption is bad for development. It leads governments to intervene where they need not, and it undermines their ability to enact and implement policies in areas in which government intervention is clearly needed—whether environmental regulation, health and safety regulation, social safety nets, macroeconomic stabilization, or contract enforcement. This chapter looks at the complex nature of corruption, its causes, and its effects on development.”
The World Bank also maintains that “The term corruption covers a broad range of human actions. To understand its effect on an economy or a political system, it helps to unbundle the term by identifying specific types of activities or transactions that might fall within it. In considering its strategy the Bank sought a usable definition of corruption and then developed a taxonomy of the different forms corruption could take consistent with that definition. We settled on a straightforward definition—the abuse of public office for private gain. Public office is abused for private gain when an official accepts, solicits, or extorts a bribe. It is also abused when private agents actively offer bribes to circumvent public policies and processes for competitive advantage and profit. Public office can also be abused for personal benefit even if no bribery occurs, through patronage and nepotism, the theft of state assets, or the diversion of state revenues. This definition is both simple and sufficiently broad to cover most of the corruption that the Bank encounters, and it is widely used in the literature. Bribery occurs in the private sector, but bribery in the public sector, offered or extracted, should be the Bank’s main concern since the Bank lends primarily to governments and supports government policies, programs, and projects.”
The Bank also single out bribery and provides a clearer understanding of what it means and entails. According to the World Bank, “Bribes are one of the main tools of corruption. They can be used by private parties to “buy” many things provided by central or local governments, or officials may seek bribes in supplying those things as stated below:
- Government contracts.Bribes can influence the government’s choice of firms to supply goods, services, and works, as well as the terms of their contracts. Firms may bribe to win a contractor to ensure that contractual breaches are tolerated.
- Government benefits.Bribes can influence the allocation of government benefits, whether monetary benefits (such as subsidies to enterprises or individuals or access to pensions or unemployment insurance) or in-kind benefits (such as access to certain schools, medical care, or stakes in enterprises being privatized).
- Lower taxes.Bribes can be used to reduce the amount of taxes or other fees collected by the government from private parties. Such bribes may be proposed by the tax collector or the taxpayer. In many countries the tax bill is negotiable.
- Bribes may be demanded or offered for the issuance of a license that conveys an exclusive right, such as a land development concession or the exploitation of a natural resource. Sometimes politicians and bureaucrats deliberately put in place policies that create control rights which they profit from by selling.
- Bribes may be offered to speed up the government’s granting of permission to carry out legal activities, such as company registration or construction permits. Bribes can also be extorted by the threat of inaction or delay.
- Legal outcomes.Bribes can change the outcome of the legal process as it applies to private parties, by inducing the government either to ignore illegal activities (such as drug dealing or pollution) or to favor one party over another in court cases or other legal proceedings.”
The World Bank also provides a clear understanding of public theft. According to the World Bank, “Theft of state assets by officials charged with their stewardship is also corruption. An extreme form is the large-scale “spontaneous” privatization of state assets by enterprise managers and other officials in some transition economies. At the other end of the scale is petty theft of items such as office equipment and stationery, vehicles, and fuel. The perpetrators of petty theft are usually middle- and lower-level officials, compensating, in some cases, for inadequate salaries. Asset control systems are typically weak or nonexistent, as is the institutional capacity to identify and punish wrongdoers.
The World Bank is consciously aware that receiving ‘bonus’ when it is legal and done openly is not corruption nor wrong. Global Witness, as a Western-based watchdog organization is obligated to understand this as well. More importantly, the organization should understand the moral, social and legal implications of asserting unfounded accusations against prominent individuals who enjoy the trust and confidence of their people. While Global Witness got one thing right, that Liberia, especially under President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, has been a haven and engine of isolated and systemic corruption, the watchdog group is wrong by making sweeping allegations, that in most cases, maligned and seek to ruin the good name and reputations of prominent individuals as in the case of former Liberian Attorney General/Minister of Justice Christiana Tah. The most prudent thing Global Witness can do now is to perhaps win the trust and confidence of Liberians by acknowledging that it has erred in including names of individuals who are people with enviable integrity.
Meanwhile, President George Weah has ordered the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Liberia to investigate the recent Global Witness Report which implicates some former government officials of allegedly receiving “kickbacks” from the sale of Oil Block ‘13’ to American oil giant ExxonMobil.
Liberia’s Minister of Information Culture and Tourism, Eugene Lenn Nagbe in a press statement issued late Saturday, March 31, 2018 said the government of Liberia is in receipt of information from several international groups including Global Witness and Wall Street Journal alleging grave acts of corruption on the part several former government officials relating to the sale of Oil Block 13 to Exxon Mobil.
The government’s press statement pointed out that although President Weah had already commissioned a general concession review including concessions in the oil sector, these allegations of bribery and misuse of office are “deeply concerning”.
Hence, the President has instructed the Minister of Justice, Cllr. Frank Musa Dean to investigate the matter and submit a preliminary report to him within two weeks.
The Liberian leader said if “illegality is determined, those culpable will bear the full weight of the law. He urged all to cooperate.
In its March 29, 2018 report, the UK-based watchdog said “n 2013, oil giant Exxon signed a $120 million deal with the Liberian Government for an oil block it knew was tainted by corruption. As our exposé reveals, Exxon negotiated the deal despite its concern over “issues regarding US anti-corruption laws.”
Our evidence shows that Exxon suspected the company it was purchasing the oil block from – Broadway Consolidated/Peppercoast (BCP) – was likely part-owned by former Liberian politicians who had illegally granted themselves the block. Exxon knew its purchase might enrich these former politicians. The company also knew the oil block had originally been awarded to BCP after Liberia’s oil agency paid bribes.
Despite these corruption red flags, Exxon didn’t walk away from the deal. Instead, it engineered a plan to skirt US legal exposure, using the Calgary-based Canadian Overseas Petroleum as a go-between to purchase the block.
Exxon’s purchase in 2013 was also accompanied by over $200,000 in unusual, large payments made by the corruption-tainted Liberian oil agency to six Liberian officials who approved the deal.
Officials who received payments include Liberia’s then-Justice, Finance and Mining Ministers, each of whom received $35,000 – more than doubling their annual salaries.
The officials receiving the unusual payments and the posts they filled at the time were: former Finance Minister, Amara Konneh; former Justice Minister, Christiana Tah; former Lands and Mines Minister, Patrick Sendolo; National Investment Commission Chairman, Natty Davis; National Oil Company of Liberia (NOCAL) CEO Randolph McClain and NOCAL Board Chair Robert Sirleaf. Sirleaf, who is the son of then-President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, was reportedly working pro-bono at the time.
Three officials who received payments – Davis, Sirleaf and Tah – have stated that they were “bonuses,” authorized by NOCAL’s Board of Directors for negotiating a good deal with Exxon. There is no evidence that Exxon knew about these payments, but they were likely made from the same oil agency account into which Exxon had just deposited $5 million.
According to Global Witness, Exxon, Broadway Consolidated/Peppercoast, and those who received the unusual, large payments should be investigated to determine if they broke laws in the US and Liberia.
These former officials have since denied any wrongdoing because the monies were “unsolicited bonuses approved by the Board of Directors of NOCAL.
