By Festus Poquie
In the wake of President Joseph Boakai’s suspension of National Oil Company of Liberia (NOCAL) CEO Rustonlyn Suacoco Dennis, claims have surfaced regarding administrative malpractices, including alleged procurement violations. Here, we dissect the allegations and evaluate their validity based on available facts.
The Allegation
1.Purchase of Two Vehicles for $75,000:
Claims suggest that Dennis circumvented budget laws by deciding to purchase two vehicles instead of adhering to pre-approved allocations. Additionally, it is alleged that she tried to negotiate a deal to purchase one vehicle for $45,000 while expecting a $30,000 kickback from the vendor.
2. $500,000 Contract Awarded to West Africa Geo-Services: Dennis is accused of unilaterally awarding a contract worth $500,000 to West Africa Geo-Services for scientific onshore data analysis, purportedly bypassing legal procurement procedures.
Key Facts
1. Board Approval for Vehicle Purchases:
In May 2024, NOCAL’s Board of Directors approved the company’s annual budget of $7.2 million, allowing for 62% of this budget to cover core operating costs. Notably, the Board increased the budget for the CEO’s vehicle from $40,000 in 2023 to $75,000 in 2024, which indicates that the purchase was anticipated.
According to documents reviewed by Oracle News Daily, the bid for two vehicles was publicly advertised, and the price of $75,000 was agreed upon as per the Board’s resolution. Significantly, the vehicles were registered in NOCAL’s name, confirming their status as company property.
2. Procurement Process for the $500,000 Contract: On October 17, 2024, NOCAL formally sought a “No Objection” from the Public Procurement Concession Commission (PPCC) to award the contract to West Africa Geo-Services. The PPCC granted approval on October 29, 2024, stating that NOCAL complied with all necessary procurement regulations.
The PPCC’s letter explicitly confirmed that the request included adequate documentation and complied with the relevant sections of the Public Procurement and Concession Act (PPCA) of 2010. This process matches the required steps for contract awards, countering allegations that the contract was awarded without proper oversight.
Conclusion
The allegations against Rustonlyn Suacoco Dennis appear to be inconsistent with the available facts and documentation. The evidence indicates that her actions regarding the vehicle purchases were in accordance with Board directives and that the procurement process for the $500,000 contract was duly followed and authorized by the PPCC.
While her judgment to pick two cars from the vendor carries the appearance of ethical or compliance missteps, the vehicles are registered property of NOCAL.
Thus, it suggests that the accusations of procurement fraud may be misleading and lack substantive grounds.
In summary, while allegations of administrative misconduct in leadership positions should be taken seriously, it is crucial that they are substantiated by factual evidence. In the case of NOCAL’s CEO, the existing data indicates compliance with both board resolutions and procurement laws, thereby casting doubt on the veracity of the claims made against her.
