The Morlu Controversy ...& How To Avoid It Going Forward

Let me begin this commentary by stipulating – like countless others – I share the deeply held view that corruption on its own and/or coupled with impunity, is indisputably endemic and has permeated the entire fabric of our society. No less a figure than President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has spoken strongly about the metastasizing nature of this cancer within the body politic of our country. This is bold and unprecedented; but in many respects, her public actions to date may fall well short of her pronouncements. While Liberia certainly does not have a monopoly on corruption compared to other societies, the practice is nevertheless abhorrent and loathsome. If our leaders – at all levels of government including the presidency – do not move beyond rhetoric by taking clear and concrete steps to act decisively against this scourge, they also will be seen – rightly or wrongly – as corrupt.

Notwithstanding the urgency of tackling this unwholesome act, the purpose of this writing is not to delve into the root causes or recommend policies and strategies to deal with it. That would be for another day. Others, at their choosing, can take it up now – as some are already doing. Rather, the objective is to narrow my thoughts and opinions to the repeated press statements made recently by Mr. John S. Morlu, II – Liberia’s new Auditor General (AG). In essence, he reiterated a wholly unsupportable quantification that the Sirleaf’s administration is at least three times more corrupt than its immediate predecessor. I will also comment on some of the profound negative effects that are caused by his method of approach.

Mr. Morlu proudly describes himself to the public as being “a young man brimming with principles and strong scruples about the nation's fiscal matters”. He says he is “innovative, meticulous and brilliant in his field of study”. Further, he has also racked up quite an impressive array of academic and professional qualifications from top-notched United States institutions – at least ten at the last count.

Mr. Morlu wants us to believe that in spite of immediate family considerations, he reluctantly accepted a well vetted international recruitment initiative for the job of AG. In the process, primary urging came from President Sirleaf. Now that he has accepted this herculean and unenviable opportunity, he needs to work alongside other Liberians of similar persuasion to take on the fight. The abiding hope and prayer for a measurable success is, at the very least, to bring the situation under control and push aggressively for a result of zero tolerance. This is generally considered a shared objective and priority of the Liberian President along with all patriotic Liberians. It is not the job for a “Lone Ranger”, even if it may seem so. The task is onerous and a real drudge; results will not be obtained overnight; however, an ancient Chinese proverb expresses “the longest journey begins with the first step”.

The issues surrounding this controversy may be complex but can be presented simply. At the outset, the AG’s ability to perform effectively seems to be severely hampered by the lack of the barest logistics and resources. Nonetheless, he prepared and submitted to the National Legislature a decent enough budget proposal for his own agency. Subsequently, he was also able to do a preliminary “pre-audit” of the draft 2007/2008 national budget for the benefit of the Legislature. That he was able to perform these tasks despite his limitations, is commendable. Whether it was within his constitutional terms of reference to engage in a pre-audit is another matter. I will address the merits of that debate later in this commentary.

The AG submitted his findings, comments and recommendations in correspondences to the leaders of the legislative and executive branches. Glaringly, there is nowhere in the review where he referred to the budget as being a corrupted document or that the intentions of the budget executives smacked of corruption. Did he later realize that his failure (if indeed it was) to do so may have been a profound mistake? If so, he could have easily prepared and submitted an addendum to his review. Did Mr. Morlu resort to a wholly unsubstantiated media statement because he did not trust that anybody smart enough to peruse his already tough and highly critical analysis, would have been equally smart to realize the seriousness of the issues he raised within the document?

I have wracked my brains and have not been able to find reasonable answers. So, I ask my readers to indulge me while I become a devil’s advocate by submitting several provocative hypotheses and even more questions for the public debate. In so doing, I am in no way attempting to cast aspersions on the actual competence, motives and/or thoughts of the line level government officials engaged in the budget process.

Here goes: There may well be an underlying element of corruption incorporated in the budget process. It is a given that at the center of every chaos, confusion or tornado is a calm. We know from experience, that when a chaotic situation prevails as we have had in our country, there is a center where evil, greedy and unscrupulous individuals opportunistically and maliciously engage in, at any cost, criminal activities for their personal gains at the expense of the people. Many of these individuals are still roaming the corridors of power in Liberia and may as well be currently involved in just this type of scenario.

However, from a less sinister viewpoint, did the AG also give any thought to the assumption that, notwithstanding the best intentions of the officials responsible for assembling a national budget and obvious shortcomings caused by the debilitating and ignominious tragedies of our recent history, most of these people may simply be incompetent, sloppy and not, after all, adequately experienced, knowledgeable and trained to conduct such an exercise?

If so, then what advance work did Mr. Morlu initiate to offset this situation? Did he engage actively in collaborative efforts with the appropriate parties to:

• Alert them about the need to be proactively and constructively involved in the preparatory budget exercises and any other economic and fiscal policies of the government that would have culminated in a more desirable set of results for the nation and the general welfare of the people?


• Suggest and/or attempt to organize participatory workshops, conferences, seminars and other practical training sessions prior to the budget exercise; and had it been required, reach out to external institutions equipped with the wherewithal to provide assistance?


• Begin a process with the Justice Ministry, Liberian Bar Association and relevant private sector, to review and enhance the existing laws and, where necessary, enact new and tougher laws either through executive orders and/or legislation? The goal here would be to provide the necessary tools to effectively fight fraud, waste and abuse, not just in government, but in every sector of the Liberian economy – including the monetary and investment sectors.

On the other hand, has Mr. Morlu considered that part of the approach he seems to have adopted in handling his job may be misguided in the eyes of the executive branch? Has he not realized that possibly in their opinion, he may be over reaching his real authority? By claiming a mandate which may not have yet been fully bestowed upon his agency under Liberian laws, is it possible the executive branch may be viewing him askance – as a usurper of unbridled power?

The AG claims he reports directly to the National Legislature as a result of a June 2005 National Transitional Legislative Assembly amendment to Section 53 of the Executive Law of 1972.

Does this amendment really exist in the form it is claimed? If it does, where can it be found for review? My question is based on the lack of inclusion of supporting documents related thereto in any reports emanating from his office. This is the real source of his authority; hence, it is strange that except for his occasional reference to it, neither his office, nor any other online source – including the media has provided public access to it – as with other documents, statutes and legislative acts he draws upon.

In the AG’s Report to the National Legislature on the draft 2007/2008 budget, he indicated the need for the intervention of Representative Gbenimah B. Slopadoe (Grand Kru, District 1) to receive a copy of the budget for his review, analysis and recommendations to the Legislature. I am at a complete loss figuring out why Mr. Morlu felt it was so important to have a confrontation with the executive branch to pre-audit the national budget. It seems he may have unnecessarily created a “mountain out of a molehill”.

Given the current structure of the Liberian constitution and statutory laws, the budget bureau may have been entirely within its rights to refuse his participation in the preparatory stage, if this is what occurred. However, there are many ways to skin a cat. With thought and foresight, Mr. Morlu would have realized that his opportunity was not lost at all. Since he claims to report directly to the legislature – which branch, in turn, has direct power of the purse strings and full oversight responsibility for final passage of the budget – it seems all he had to do was patiently bide his time, and quietly coordinate with the legislature, so that upon receipt of the draft from the executive branch, he would have had the ability to analyze it during the legislative phase.

He constantly claims that the December 2006 UN Panel of Experts Report “recommended the GAC audit the annual proposed budget of the Administration to ensure accuracy and comprehensiveness”. Using the word “proposed” is a clear code for “pre-audit”. He also stresses this “is consistent with best practices (Open Budget Index) and is in line with the Auditor General’s statutory responsibility…”. Further, he asserts the Open Budget Index is “the international ranking agency of national budgets”.

Unless Mr. Morlu can show otherwise, most of the assertions above are unsupportable. I have not seen anywhere in the Panel of Experts Report referred to above recommending an audit of the “annual proposed budget”. (Note, the emphasis in quotes). He also fails to say that as much as the Open Budget Index is highly useful and desirable, Liberia is not yet a member of, or party to, this initiative. Additionally, he unwittingly or deliberately misleads the Legislature with partial facts which, taken alone, render an impression that Open Budget initiative is a de facto and automatic process. The underlying principle which drives the Open Budget Index is that it is a “bottoms up” initiative requiring the full budgetary participation of civil society, NGOs, villages, clans, townships, districts, municipalities, cities, counties – you name it. Even with this upward interactive chain, a primary pre-condition to ensure the process is successful is the full and unwavering participation of the central government.

I do not know Mr. Morlu personally, nor do I recall ever meeting or speaking to him. Although I have quietly followed his writings – over a period of time – on the internet, and have been generally impressed with his seeming grasp of issues, and depth of knowledge, I have also observed that in spite of his qualifications, he sometimes posits (in not so subtle ways) a sense of immaturity. Indeed, I now wonder if he spent too much time in academia burning the midnight oil and not enough time learning about life in the real world. For now, he seems to be a “diamond in the rough”.

He has been invariably described as being brash, full of braggadocio and a true attention getter (not good). While he seemingly projects a lot of self confidence (good), this needs to be tempered with a healthy dose of humility to ensure it does not cross the line into dangerous overconfidence. In his current position, he needs to measure his words very carefully before uttering them publicly or even privately; nonetheless, I do not suggest he foregoes objectivity and straight talk.

Mr. Morlu has now “talked the talk” and “written the word” with so-called “finesse”. To engage more effectively as a full and successful partner with others in a third world under developed country such as ours, he must now harness the qualities necessary to “walk the walk”. They are not limited to the academic qualifications he already possesses. Instead, they include having great “street smarts and common sense”. Additionally, he needs to realize that other key characteristics in the personality of anybody holding this job in Liberia are the ability to be cajoling and disarming (dare I say, a top notch “salesperson”) – while at the same time, exercising firmness and toughness. During his tenure at the helm of the General Auditing Commission (GAC), he must remember he is no longer campaigning for the opportunity of a lifetime; he now has it. He must channel his tremendous skills to the mission at hand. While he does not need any distractions in the exercise of his responsibilities, he must carefully avoid creating his own. In carrying out his public duties, he needs to be calm and persistent – doing so without fear or favor, irrespective of friend or foe. He does not have to place himself in an antagonistic posture to achieve his goals. He needs to be completely transparent, fair, objective and impartial. He must quickly develop a set of strong people skills.

Did he not realize that even if he did absolutely nothing – other than just showing up for work after being appointed – he would have been viewed (right off the bat) as completely inimical to the personal greed and thriving criminal enterprise of individuals bent on continuing their skullduggery? Did he also overlook that these powerful players prey upon their country and the people using the “law of the jungle” within a vulnerable societal structure and bloated bureaucracy? Did he not know they will stop at nothing to make his job all but impossible? Did he not know he had to prepare the environment on the ground and rethink his personal approach – one step at a time – to pre-empt whatever roadblocks these people may have planned? In short, did he think this would be a cakewalk to be handled with mere bravado and verbosity?

I hope Mr. Morlu has now reflected deeply on his simple, but very damaging assertion that corruption is three times greater under the current administration compared to the preceding one. Does he truly believe this? Can he really support his statement without equivocation? For that matter, while corruption is certainly rampant, is it really greater in any way or form than that which prevailed in the previous administration? If his answer to any of these questions is “Yes”, then why did he not include this adverse opinion – with supporting facts – in his report to the legislature? By not doing so, the omission became a disservice to that body and the Liberian people.

Otherwise, what was he truly hoping to accomplish with this action? Has it furthered his work in any positive manner? Is he now a politician, instead of a technocrat? Did he not consider the negative impact such a declaration would have had on our country utilizing the method he chose?

Domestically, it is vital for the Liberian leaders to earn the trust and confidence of their people. It is also important that the people they serve reap and enjoy all the fruits of their nation equitably. This enhances the overall social and economic wellbeing of the public at large while producing a real sense of security and hope for an even better future. So, after the last horrendous 17+ years in our nation, this first truly democratic government cannot and must not squander the opportunity its people have provided.

Internationally, Liberia is at the mercy of its partners’ largesse. External resources and goodwill are limited and usually go where potential recipients show not just real need, but also the will to utilize such goodwill to the maximum benefit of their people. So-called donors’ fatigue is already evident in the Liberian situation.

How much damage has occurred and will arise from Mr. Morlu’s statement is not yet fully known. But, let us not fool ourselves. It is now done. We know it is much easier to destroy than to build. We need no reminder beyond our recent past. Additionally, we do not need to look any further than the international press – irrespective of the language – to discover the widespread publicity his thoughtless statements have garnered.

The media, while very important and indispensable to our emergent democracy, is not the primary “go to” place for Mr. Morlu at this time. Instead, he needs to know his forum and understand there is an appropriate time and place for his actions. While it is desirable to be available to and savvy with the media, he has more effective avenues and tools at his disposal to make a significant difference. His new job does not qualify him to be a whistleblower; instead it provides him with the constitutional right to openly speak to the public through the legislature. The media can then pick up on his “on the record” remarks and freely disseminate it appropriately. If he continued unsuccessfully engaging the appropriate government bureaucracy to get his office up and running, it would have been perfectly fine, in my estimation, to make media comments on the facts of that matter and elaborate on the extent to which the problems are exacerbating his work. Unfortunately, he unwisely muddied the waters and exposed himself unnecessarily to substantial public and official rebuke not germane to the crux of the issue.

What I think is required now is for the AG to explain for the public’s benefit and good of the nation, how he made the giant leap from reporting serious deficiencies/flaws in the budget process to overtly public media statements making a specific quantification of corruption. We are also to believe this declarative remark emanates from his pre-audit of the draft 2007/2008 national budget. Instead of Mr. Morlu continuing to obfuscate the issues in defending his statement, he must clearly say what substantive factors underlie his claim. With the most limited resources, he has seemingly done a really good job highlighting the budget flaws. Now, what driving force caused him to put his feet into his mouth with such an asinine assertion is beyond me. His statements carry great import for good or ill. In my humble opinion, his credibility is now at stake. He may think that such remark enhances his popularity with the masses; but this may be shortsighted. Due to the very high illiteracy rate in our country, most people do not understand issues – such as the current one – as they ordinarily should; they tend to respond well to sensationalism – even if misguided. Those of us who have been otherwise blessed must always seize the opportunity to engage and educate in a positive way.

It is said that “everyone is entitled to his opinions, but not his own facts”. It seems to me that in this instance, the AG may be consciously playing “fast and loose” with words and the facts by fudging some of his own.

There is clearly a turf battle being waged here; however, it has evolved around the wrong subject. At the end of the day, there will be no clear winners and only one big loser – the Liberian people. So, enough is enough. Let us now get down to the nitty gritty and do the right thing for our country and people!

Over the course of our 160 year history, we have borrowed a few important symbols and practices from the United States of America and the time may be right to unashamedly do it once more. The State of Missouri has a wonderful motto. It is the Latin phrase "Salus populi suprema lex esto” meaning “Let the good (or welfare) of the people be the supreme law”. It would probably be wise to adopt this as our national motto. If this ever happens, we should simultaneously get rid of the existing motto above the emblem of our Great Seal: “The Love of Liberty Brought Us Here”. This phrase has always been highly controversial in our history since it affects the sensibilities of the greater segment of our population and we must stop adding insult to injury. Further, our motto can be considered redundant because the name of our country derives from the Latin word “Liber” meaning, in this instance, “Free”.