27.9 C
Monrovia
Wednesday, April 24, 2024

My Take on What Happened at NASSCORP

Must read

By Vandalark R. Patricks

The sequence of challenging presidential authority will soon go out of hand. When a presidential mandate, order, or directive is given or issued with reference to been replaced or appointed to a position, such presidential mandate should be upheld or respected. In an event it contradicts or violates statutory laws, the ONLY alternative option is to run to the court of competent jurisdiction to seek protection of the law.

Resisting, rejecting and refusing to adhere to a presidential mandate or a communicate that someone has been appointed by the president to your position, is an affront and pure arrogance.

This type of defiance must be drastically dealt with. This is not a threat, but it clearly shows gross insubordination to the presidency.

So, for the NASSCORP boss to have argued that the President should have officially communicated with him about his replacement, speaks more about how some public officials are uninformed about the different channels presidential directives are communicated.

There’s absolutely no law that demands the president to formally write an appointed or non-appointed public official informing him/her they have been dismissed or replaced. Former presidents Weah, Ellen, Taylor , Tolbert, etc. dismissed or replaced public officials in the past without formally communicating with them.

For NASSCORP’s boss to have insisted he can’t honor the signed presidential letter of appointment of the Officer-in-Charge at NASSCORP, Cllr. Molfie Kanneh, speaks of his gross insubordinate behavior to the office of the president.

The third point is, the ruling party is headed by a chairman. The accompanying of the new NASSCORP

Officer-In-Charge by UP top officials including the UP party chairman to formally meet the senior management team at NASSCORP was a form of professional courtesy.

For the fact that the party’s delegation went with a presidential mandate (signed letter of appointment from H.E. JNB) that says Cllr. Kanneh is the newly appointed Officer-In-Charge of the entity, Mr. Dewitt vonBalmoos needed to respect that mandate. His argument that information about the appointment of the new Officer-In-Charge at NASSCORP isn’t on the Executive Mansion’s website, is faulty and very disrespectful.

Dewitt vonBalmoos must understand simple principles of public policy and public administration and should realize that the president has so many channels to communicate his mandates, both formal and informal.

If Mr. Dewitt vonBalmoos still thinks his replacement is illegal, the court is the best option, but he has no authority whatsoever to prevent someone from taking over. If he goes to court to challenge JNB’s presidential appointment of a new Officer-In-Charge at NASSCORP and wins the case, he can still be brought back to the entity!

His insistence that he cannot leave NASSCORP and gave way to a new appointee on grounds that the presidency should formally communicate with him, is nonsensical. The letter presented him by Cllr. Kanneh referring to him (Cllr. Kanneh) as the new Officer-In- Charge should inform Mr. Dewitt vonBalmoos’ thinking that the president has replaced him.

It’s imperative to state here also that President Weah submitted a bill to the National Legislature requesting that branch of government to CANCEL or TERMINATE all tenure positions while serving as President.

That bill was overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives. The Senate later concurred with the House of Representatives and sent it to him (President Weah) to sign it into law.

So, those lawmakers that are now arguing that the cancellation or termination of tenure positions is illegal, are hypocrites. They were the same people who overwhelmingly voted to cancel or terminate tenure positions, but are now pretending to be innocent. Chey Liberia!

If they knew this was illegal, why they voted to terminate tenure positions in the past? Beyond that, the Supreme Court of Liberia earlier ruled on this matter when the former Liberia National Lottery boss went to court after he was replaced while serving in a tenure position. The court ruled that “tenure positions that are not mentioned in the constitution are considered contracts. Please read article 25.

The court went on to say that if someone is to be replaced while in a tenure position that has not expired, the government is obligated to pay them off for the remaining years provided they didn’t violate the terms and conditions of the very contract”. Lol.. I know someone will soon say I am taking side. But, your nyankamadee!

Latest article