By Cllr Augustine S. Chea (Senator, Sinoe County)
President Boakai has, by Proclamation, declared October as Good Governance Month. The declaration sounds noble. But nearly three years into his administration, the symbolism of such a proclamation invites a harder and more consequential question: Is this a genuine commitment to good governance, or another exercise in political symbolism.
There is nothing wrong with dedicating a month to promoting good governance. Public awareness, dialogue, and reflection on the principles of accountable government are certainly worthwhile. But good governance cannot be created by proclamation, and it cannot be reduced to speeches, conferences, billboards, press releases, or ceremonial events.
Good governance is demonstrated by what a government does when the Constitution becomes inconvenient, when the courts disagree with it, when its political allies are accused of wrongdoing, and when the law threatens people close to power.
And it is precisely on those questions that the Boakai administration has accumulated a troubling record. A proclamation may declare October as Good Governance Month, but only conduct can establish good governance.
Nearly three years into the Boakai administration, serious questions have emerged about the government’s commitment to the rule of law, constitutionalism, accountability, transparency, institutional independence, and equal application of justice.
The declaration of Good Governance Month therefore presents the administration with an opportunity for introspection. It can either become another government-sponsored observance or it can become a turning point in the way the government governs.
Governance cannot be proclaimed; it must be practiced.
So, Good Governance Month should commence with a candid examination of the most consequential governance lapses and institutional shortcomings of the close to three years of this administration.
The arbitrary removal of tenured public officials
One of the most troubling governance issues has been the administration’s handling of tenured public officials. Questions have been raised about the removal of officials whose appointments carry statutory or protected tenure, as well as the subsequent appointment of replacements in circumstances not consistent with existing laws and constitutional safeguards.
If government officials can be removed or replaced without strict adherence to the law, then the issue goes beyond the individuals involved. It raises a fundamental question: Does tenure have any meaning in Liberia, or does its protection depend on which political party controls the Executive Mansion?
The Legislature and the Speaker Koffa controversy
The confrontation surrounding former Speaker J. Fonati Koffa has also raised profound constitutional questions.
The attempt by members of the House of Representatives to remove the Speaker, the role of the Executive in relation to the so-called “majority bloc,” and the administration’s subsequent posture toward the Supreme Court’s decision have generated continuing controversy.
The issue is not simply whether one supports Speaker Koffa or the lawmakers who sought his removal. The larger question is whether constitutional procedures can be altered, circumvented, or politically reinterpreted whenever they become inconvenient.
Where the Constitution establishes a specific threshold for removing a Speaker, political convenience cannot replace constitutional procedure.
The Executive’s relationship with the Legislature must also be scrutinized. Statements about working with a particular “majority” in the House, particularly in the context of an effort to remove the Speaker, can create the perception that the Executive is participating in an internal legislative power struggle rather than maintaining the constitutional distance expected among the three branches of government.
Good governance requires separation of powers, not political alignment masquerading as constitutional practice.
If the President publicly declared an intention to “work with the majority” in circumstances involving a disputed legislative majority, Liberians are entitled to ask whether other state decisions are being administered according to law, merit, and national interest, or according to political calculations.
The Foya housing project and transparency
The multimillion-dollar Foya housing project associated with the President raises another set of questions that the administration should answer transparently.
Questions have been raised about the project’s relationship to the national budget, compliance with the Public Procurement and Concessions Act, the source of financing, and the changing descriptions of the project’s funding — including references to ECOWAS and, subsequently, financing through State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs).
These questions should not be dismissed as political attacks or “dogs barking”. They are legitimate good governance questions.
If the project is lawful, properly funded, appropriately procured, and in the national interest, then the government should have nothing to fear from full disclosure.
The administration should publish the relevant contracts, procurement documents, financing arrangements, budgetary authority, and project agreements. Transparency is the simplest antidote to suspicion.
The corruption fight and selective justice
Perhaps the most consequential test of the administration’s commitment to good governance is its anti-corruption campaign.
Fighting corruption is unquestionably necessary. But the fight against corruption loses moral authority when citizens perceive it as selective, partisan, or politically motivated.
The public has observed corruption cases involving former officials of the CDC administration, while questions have also been raised about the handling of corruption allegations involving officials associated with the ruling Unity Party.
The cases involving Abdullah Kamara and Arthur Massaquoi, and the prosecution of former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah, among others, have contributed to a broader public debate about whether Liberia’s justice system is applying the same standard to people regardless of political affiliation.
A criminal justice system must determine guilt or innocence through evidence and due process. But the standard must be the same for everyone.
If the government vigorously pursues cases against opposition or former CDC government officials while cases involving officials associated with the ruling party are abandoned, weakened, or pursued less aggressively, then the anti-corruption campaign risks being viewed not as institutional reform but as political prosecution.
That perception can be more damaging than corruption itself because it destroys confidence in the institutions established to fight corruption.
The rape allegations and the appearance of unequal justice
The controversy surrounding allegations of rape against Deputy Youth and Sports Minister J. Bryant McGill has likewise raised questions about consistency in the application of law enforcement.
The Inspector General of Police indicated that an arrest could not be made without DNA evidence, while other suspects accused of rape have been arrested without DNA evidence and are languishing in jail.
Whether an individual is ultimately guilty or innocent is a matter for due process and the courts. But the government must explain why the investigative and enforcement standards appear different from one case to another.
Justice cannot have one standard for politically connected persons and another for opposition and ordinary Liberians. The perception that political connections provide protection is itself a governance crisis.
The US$19 million and US$317 million drug cases
The enormous drug-trafficking investigations involving seizures reportedly valued at approximately US$19 million and US$317 million represent perhaps the most serious test yet of the administration’s commitment to impartial law enforcement.
The government has a responsibility to investigate these cases thoroughly and prosecute everyone implicated by credible evidence, regardless of political affiliation.
But serious concerns have been raised about whether the investigation has disproportionately focused on former CDC officials and whether attempts have been made to link the cases politically to the former government.
The deeply troubling arrest of former Vice President Jewel Howard-Taylor and reported efforts to arrest other former CDC officials have intensified perceptions that the drug case may be taking on a politically selective character.
At the same time, allegations have implicated individuals linked to the current administration, including claims that drug cartel figures identified President Boakai’s son, Joseph Boakai, Jr. (Jojo), as someone with whom they had dealings.
Those are serious allegations. The appropriate response, therefore, is not political protection or political prosecution. It is an independent, credible investigation.
If the President’s son has been named in connection with such allegations, the public deserves to know whether he has been investigated, whether investigators have interviewed him, and whether evidence exists supporting or disproving the allegations, as was done with others.
The same standard must apply to everyone. Why is Jojo a free man while former Vice President Jewel Howard-Taylor is in detention?
The Police Inspector General’s acknowledgment that senior officials of this government are involved makes an independent investigation even more imperative. And the fact that most of the Inspector General’s confidants are implicated — including mounting allegations of his complicity — strongly supports the calls for his recusal or removal from the investigation.
The US deportees and the rule of law
The government’s acceptance of third-country nationals deported from the United States also deserves careful scrutiny.
If individuals are being transferred to Liberia who are not Liberian citizens and who do not fall within the applicable extradition or other legal mechanisms governing the transfer of persons between the United States and Liberia, the government should explain the precise legal basis for accepting them.
This is not merely a diplomatic matter; it is a question of constitutional governance and the rule of law. The government should therefore disclose the agreement, legal instrument, diplomatic arrangement, or statutory authority under which these individuals were accepted and clarify their legal status in Liberia. The government should also clarify reports that the U.S. Government paid US$5 million to the Liberian Government in connection with the deportee transfer arrangement.
A government committed to good governance should welcome scrutiny rather than regard it as hostility.
Intolerance and political polarization
Finally, there is the growing concern over intolerance in our political discourse. When those entrusted with public authority respond to legitimate criticism with contempt or hostility, they undermine accountability, silence constructive dissent, and erode the democratic culture of openness and scrutiny that good governance demands.
No government can build a truly united nation by engaging only with those who agree with it. Leadership is not about surrounding oneself with voices of approval; it is about having the courage to listen to those who disagree, engage political opponents, and recognize that opposition and dissent are not threat to democracy, but essential parts of it.
Our country is deeply divided, and growing intolerance and political polarization risk pushing those divisions to a crisis point. That possibility must be avoided. It is therefore imperative that those in the Executive create space for dialogue, listen to differing opinions, and treat political opponents with respect. Through dialogue, mutual respect, tolerance, and a genuine willingness to find common ground, we can reduce tensions, strengthen national cohesion, and move our country forward together.
The President and his officials must therefore reach across political lines, create space for meaningful dialogue, and demonstrate a willingness to engage even with those who strongly disagree with them. National unity cannot be built through exclusion, confrontation, or intolerance. It is built through respect, dialogue, tolerance, and a genuine willingness to find common ground.
Perhaps the greatest danger facing Liberia today is not any single controversial decision. It is the normalization of questionable governance. And that is how institutions decay gradually. Not overnight.
So, Mr. President, October gives you an opportunity to change the narrative. You can make Good Governance Month more than a proclamation. You can make it the beginning of a genuine course correction.
Let’s walk the talk.
