By: Stephen R. Johnson, Political Commentator
Our country is truly an interesting place. And all it takes is for one “respected” person to use a word to describe something – and boom, in no time several other seemingly educated persons will start to follow the wrong path. Such is the case of the much-touted “66 bogus agreements” that were reportedly passed during the 12-year administration of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.
Were these agreements really “bogus” as is being alleged? To answer the question, we must firstly define what the word “bogus” means. The word “bogus” means “not genuine or true” or we could seemingly say it means “false”.
So, the key questions to ask are:
1) Are these 66 agreements not genuine or true? Are they false?
3) Weren’t they passed by the branch of government (The National Legislature) constitutionally empowered to pass laws and signed by the President constitutionally empowered to sign laws?
4) Are the 66 concessions just figments of the imagination? Where there companies actually established that are giving jobs to our people and paying taxes to the government as a result of these agreements.
5) Were the lawmakers who passed these concession agreements, including then Senator Jewel Howard Taylor and then Senator George Weah, bogus lawmakers?
6) Was President Sirleaf, the person who approved the concession agreement, a bogus president?
Let me clear the confusion. Before these 66 agreements were approved, there existed the Revenue Code of 2002, which provided a tax regime (corporate income, royalty, etc) for various investments. The Executive under Ellen Johnson Sirleaf also developed what is called a “Model Mineral Development Agreement” with set tax rates to be levelled on concessionaires in the mining sector and other requirements they must meet.
What the international auditing group Moore Stevens did was to essentially compare the checklist of provisions in the Revenue Code of 2002, the Model MDA, and other existing laws of Liberia against the provisions (tax, royalties, etc) in the concession agreements as approved by the National Legislature and approved by the President. Moore Stevens found 66 of the 68 agreements not to be fully consistent, in one way or the other, with the instruments cited above. Only 2 of the 68 concession agreements reviewed met 100% of the previously existing laws and requirements. For each concession agreement reviewed, Moore Stevens pointed out the specific areas of inconsistency or deviation from the Revenue Code and other laws. Not once did Moore Stevens state in its audit report any of the agreements was bogus.
While it is true that 100% consistency with the Revenue Code of 2002 and the other existing instruments would have been the perfect outcome, the National Legislature has the constitutional right to review the peculiar circumstances of an investment proposal and, based on the overall net strategic value to the state at a point in time, give tax and other concessions to a particular investor. THAT’S PRECISELY WHY THESE AGREEMENTS ARE CALLED CONCESSION AGREEMENTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE COUNTRY “CONCEDES” ON SOME PROVISIONS OF EXISTING LEGAL REGIMES IN ORDER TO SECURE AN INVESTMENT!
And let it also be known that each of these concession agreements are laws by themselves, passed by the National Legislature and approved by the President as constitutionally required. And one key language in all these concession agreements, or to put it rightly, concession laws, is that in the event that any provision of an previously existing law contradicts a specific provision of the concession agreement (law), the provision of the concession agreement (law) supersedes to the extent of the inconsistency.
Therefore, where are we coming from with all this fuss about bogus concession agreements? We have none. Moore Stevens did not label any concession agreements bogus, All of the 66 concession agreements are fully legal and legitimate. To the extent that the current regime considers any provision of these concession agreements (laws) not to be in the interest of contemporary Liberia at this point in time, those provisions can be reviewed and amended. In fact, all the agreements have provisions for review and amendments.
So, let’s stop saying that 66 bogus agreements were passed under Ellen. All the agreements passed were laws in themselves and they superseded all other laws to the contrary. Maybe the word “bogus” has a good ring in the ear and people love hearing it. If that is the case, those who love calling them bogus agreements can continue legitimate and lawful agreements bogus. At least we know much better.
