Friday, February 19, 2010 

By Paul Yeenie Harry                                       

Dear Ma Ellen,

To start with as you’ve already noticed, it’s not my intention to be formal in this letter. You’ve indicated on a few occasions that, by virtue of your gender and current position, you’re like our mother. I’m addressing you with that in mind. This doesn’t mean that I’ll eat crab with shame – I’ll express myself fearlessly and forcefully. Bear with me also, Ma Ellen, as I may defy preciseness and conciseness in my letter – I may be superfluous and repetitious in making my point.

Secondly, I wish to thank you for the level of security, rediscovery, freedom, hope and international goodwill our nation is enjoying under your leadership. For example, under your leadership, most of Liberia’s debt has been cancelled. Thank you, Ma Ellen! You have done well in many areas, which are worth mentioning, but it’s not the purpose of this letter.

Frankly, Ma Ellen, when I reflect on what opposition politicians, student activists, human rights activists, journalists, former warlords and scores of other people went through under the leadership of ex-President Taylor, and consider the fact that such Liberians as Tom Kamara, Milton Teahjay, Amos Sawyer, Alphonso Nimene, Prince Johnson, Alhaji Kromah, Sekou Conneh and many, many others – all of whom fled Liberia because of Taylor’s method of politicking – have all returned to, and are living in Liberia, my conscience compels me to thank you for your leadership although I’m disappointed because of other things you have either done or failed to do.

I was in Liberia between 2007 and 2008, spending six months there. While in Liberia, I frequented an Internet café located somewhere between the JFK fence and 20^th Street. During one of my visits at the café, I bumped into George Boley. I was somehow surprised. I called his attention by saying, “Hi Doc!” We shook hands and chatted for about two minutes and he left. I’m mentioning all this because he was one of those who could not step in his own country because of Taylor. You’ve changed the situation around. All of those who fled the country because of Taylor have either returned, or they traveled there freely whenever they wanted to. Thank you, Ma Ellen, for the level of freedom and security our people are enjoying.

Having said that, Ma Ellen, I’m extremely disappointed and dumbfounded at the same time by your declaration to contest the 2011 presidential elections. You see, Ma Ellen, I’m disappointed with you because your decision and declaration to run in 2011 is unhealthy for our country and for you yourself. I’ll expatiate on this in the proceeding paragraphs, using seven reasons.

Reason #1

First of all, Ma Ellen, you made the declaration at the wrong occasion, which is inappropriate on your part. The purpose of that joint-session of congress is for you to tell the nation, through their elected members of parliament what your government’s activities and plans are or have been, for the country. It is not a forum for you to promote your personal political plans or agenda. Article 58 of our Constitution clearly states the purpose of that gathering. Simply put, Ma Ellen, you made the declaration at the wrong forum.

It’s possible that you or others will want to argue that you’ve done nothing wrong because the Constitution does not state exactly where a person must declare or not declare their intention for the presidency, or any other public office for that matter. But this would be an unreasonable argument to make because that would mean there’s no limit to where and when a person can make such a declaration, which would be hilarious at least, and dangerous at best.

Would you argue that it’s right for you to enter the Supreme Court during an important hearing and declare your intention there because, according to your argument, the Constitution does not say where a person can or cannot declare their intention? You know such an argument would be laughable. Common sense, as well as experience, tells us that there are proper principles and policies – written and unwritten – to consider when thinking about the time, occasion and venue of an event.

This is exactly why you wouldn’t enter a Supreme Court’s hearing to announce your bid for a second term. This is also why you wouldn’t enter the premises of another political party to hold a press conference to announce your decision. You see why it is funny and disingenuous for anyone to argue that your declaration at the Capitol Building is not wrong, because the Constitution does not say exactly where a person can or cannot declare his or her intention for a public office?

There is a possibility to keep stretching such a laughable argument. What would you say, for example to a stubborn Liberian who says that he wants to get married on the fourth floor of the Executive Mansion, because according to him, the Constitution does not indicate exactly where a person can or cannot get married? You see the point?

Reason #2

Ma Ellen, your action is technically unconstitutional. The State of the Nation’s Address shouldn’t be about your political ambition. Your declaration for a second term shouldn’t have formed part of the speech. The content of such a speech is clearly spelled out in Article 58 of the Constitution – the administration’s legislative program for the ensuing session, and a report on the state of the country including the nation’s economic condition, income and expenditure.

The speech shouldn’t contain personal information that is not in line with what’s mentioned in Article 58. Hence, during the speech, no president should talk about their plan to get married or go out on a date with a partner, to send their son or daughter to college, or to talk about their intention to run for a second term. That’s not the purpose of that forum, Ma Ellen!

When we apply the Law of Exclusion to Article 58, it’s clearly seen that your declaration went beyond what the Constitution spells out. Generally stated, the Law of Exclusion provides that if something is specifically mentioned to be done in a certain case or situation, then everything else not connected with what is mentioned is excluded. 

For example, if one decides to participate in a competition organized for dog breeders, then that person cannot go to the competition with horses, ostriches, crocodiles or camels. The Law of Exclusion would restrict them to only go with dogs. Going with any other animal would violate the rules and purpose of the game.

Hence, in your case, Ma Ellen, your declaration goes beyond what the Constitution specifically mentions. You ignored the Law of Exclusion as indicated in Article 58. Consequently, you violated the Constitution. You see what I mean?

Reason #3

Ma Ellen, your declaration further robs you of your credibility. I used “further” because some of your credibility has already been taken away by other actions or declarations of yours. For example, your recent pronouncement that all government ministries and agencies should employ at least two Unity Party members, as if you didn’t know that Article 18 clearly states that “All Liberian citizens shall have equal opportunity for work and employment regardless of sex, creed, religion, ethnic background, place of origin or political affiliation, and all shall be entitled to equal pay for equal work” is a case in point.

You see, Ma Ellen, during the 2005 campaign, you, on numerous occasions declared and promised the Liberian people that you would be a one-term president. Many of us believed you when you said it, because we thought you mean what you say and say what you mean. Now, it’s clear that the opposite is true in this case, unfortunately.

If you or others are going to argue that anybody can say something or take a decision and change later, remember that you are not an ordinary person. You are a symbol – a role model – whose words and deeds have national and international implications. You are the first elected female leader of Africa!

Besides, your original decision not to run for a second term is not an ordinary decision. It’s not about “But every human being can make a decision and change it later.” Some decisions have greater impact than others, depending on from whom they emanate, or depending on the situation under consideration. You cannot compare your decision, which has serious national consequences with that of a child deciding not to eat the food given him by his or her mother, and deciding to eat it thirty minutes later. It’s even not comparable to a guy telling his girlfriend that he doesn’t want to be with her, and going back after a week to say that he has changed his decision.

Did anyone force you to talk about being a one-term president during the elections? I don’t think so. Still, if you tell us that your first pronouncement was not well thought out, then how can we trust you the next time around? Also, when you made the first pronouncement, did you believe that it was in the best interest of Liberia, or not? If yes, will you admit that your new pronouncement is not in the best interest of Liberia? If no, will you admit that you deceived the Liberian people – telling them something with conviction when you knew that it was not in their best interest? This is about credibility, Ma Ellen!

Why are you ignoring your credibility, your chance to present change and commitment we can believe in, Ma Ellen? Why? Many of us thought you were determined to set a precedent in Liberian politics when you made that important pronouncement. We thought you wanted to be the “Nelson Mandela of Liberia,” but you’ve clearly indicated that we should have known that you are just another politician. I’m disappointed, Ma Ellen!

Reason #4

Ma Ellen, your pronouncement is disappointing because the reason you give for it, according to information – that you have some incomplete projects that you want to finish because no one else would be able to implement them except you – is so hilarious, simplistic and disingenuous that I didn’t think you would even consider presenting it as the reason why you desire to run again.

By the way, Ma Ellen, what are the projects that you believe no other Liberian or group of Liberians can implement, except you? Which projects and programs are you referring to? I’m curious to know. Does the package include a serious, uncompromising and all-out war against corruption in government, especially among officials? You know you cannot say yes to this one, Ma Ellen. Does it include providing electricity to all parts of Monrovia and its environs, as well as the entire country? Or, still, does it include reducing the unemployment rate to twenty-percent or thirty-percent? Does it include connecting all the counties with well-paved roads and various means of transport? Could it be that the package includes the full support and implementation of the TRC Report? What does the project package really include, Ma Ellen, a package whose implementation, according to you can only be achieved when you are the president?

Frankly, Ma Ellen, your reason for wanting to run again is the same argument used by other African leaders who desire to remain in power. The President of Niger (until he was forcefully deposed few days ago), seventy-one-year-old Mamadou Tandja, changed his nation’s Constitution to run for a third term. He argued that he had programs aimed at improving the lives of the citizens, and he didn’t want to leave without implementing them. 

Former President Bakili Muluzi of Malawi proposed to change his country’s Constitution in order to allow him to run for a third term. His reason? He had new programs that he wanted to introduce to help Malawians. President Abdul Aziz Bouteflika of Algeria changed his country’s Constitution to enable him run for a third term. He and his supporters said that he had introduced reforms and programs that only he, and not anyone else could implement. President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda changed his country’s Constitution so that he could run for a third term. He made the same arguments – that he had reform package and programs to better off Ugandans, and he was the only person who could execute the programs and reforms. 

President Olusegun Obasanjo wanted to change Nigeria’s Constitution to contest for a third term. He also argued that he had unfinished projects and programs that he wanted to implement because no one else would implement them. President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal has just announced that he will run for a third term in 2012, although he’s serving his second term, which expires in 2012, and Senegal’s Constitution allows only a two-term arrangement. His argument? He has introduced worthy programs and projects, which he wants to complete, because no other person will be able to implement them except him. Sounds familiar, Ma Ellen? It surely does!

Besides, Ma Ellen, death does not announce whom it is taking, and when it’s taking that person, including you and me. Are you saying that if you were to die today (God forbid!), there are projects and programs that you have started, which no other Liberian or group of Liberians would ever be able to implement? Why think in such a fashion, Ma Ellen?

Ma Ellen, what would you have said to President Doe if he had given the same reason in 1990? Would you have said that Doe should have been allowed to implement all the projects he had started – the unfinished Health Ministry in Congo Town, the unfinished Defense Ministry in Congo Town, the unfinished SKD Boulevard, etc.? Why do you think you should be allowed to run again because you have unfinished projects, but Doe shouldn’t have been allowed for the same reason? Isn’t this selfish and disingenuous, Ma Ellen? If it’s about implementing unfinished projects, Ma Ellen, then you surely have some apologizing to do.

On this one, Ma Ellen, I’m afraid you make Doe look better. You know that when you and Charles Taylor brought the war, Doe had some projects on hand. The interesting thing is that Doe never told the Liberian people that he would run again, or argued that he should have been allowed to run again because he had started some projects that only he, and no other Liberian could have implemented. Instead, he said that he wouldn’t participate in the impending 1991 elections. Don’t forget, Ma Ellen, that Doe had the constitutional right to a second term but he chose not to pursue it because of conditions. You can do the same, especially in view of the TRC’s Report that bans you from holding any public office for thirty consecutive years.

Reason #5

Ma Ellen, your pronouncement makes you no different from Doe – in other words, your words cannot be trusted on similar point. When Doe came to power after he and his cohorts brutally killed President Tolbert, he pronounced that he would return the country to a civilian authority, and that he and his men would go back to the barracks.

However, he, like you changed his mind after he had tasted power. He, like you, disregarded his first promise. You know how many of us, including you felt when Doe ignored his original promise? You even criticized Doe for reneging on his original promise. Remember, Ma Ellen? And here you are, Ma Ellen, playing a similar game. How do you feel about it, especially when you reflect on Doe’s case, Ma Ellen?

You or other may want to argue that there’s a difference between you and Doe – meaning, Doe came to power by force, and you came to power by the ballot. However, the discussion is not about the method of ascendancy, but about a promise not kept. Simple!

Reason #6

Ma Ellen, your decision to run for a second term makes you no different from Taylor – that is, your words cannot be trusted on similar issue. When you and Taylor launched the war to remove Doe from power, and after he had gained some ground in the process, he did something in 1990 similar to what you have done. He made a promise to the Liberian people and the world when he knew that the promise meant nothing to him.

It was in April 1990, during an interview with a British journalist named Mark Huband. Taylor was asked about his plans relating to elections and governance. In his response, among other things, he said that he wouldn’t be a candidate in any civilian elections. However, as we all now know, after Taylor had already virtually ruled, acted and lived as a president for about eight years (1990 – 1997), he not only contested in a civilian election and became a civilian president, he still wanted to contest the 2003 impending elections in the midst of a serious war.

Ma Ellen, the point is that Taylor told the Liberian people one thing in 1990, which many believed and he did the direct opposite later. The similarity between you and Taylor on this is that you told the Liberian people one thing in 2005, and you are doing the very opposite. I’m disappointed, Ma Ellen!

Reason #7

Your pronouncement, Ma Ellen, poses a serious danger to justice and the rule of law. In other words, your declaration not only helps to continue the culture of impunity, it actually propels it to a higher level. In fact, this is the most inimical of the problems associated with your declaration. You are setting a very detrimental precedence vis-à-vis the TRC Report and its implementation. It seems you are seeking your own interest at the expense of justice, Ma Ellen. It’s unbelievable to see you do this.

After you had supported the establishment of the TRC and the act creating it, as well as its mandate; after you had gone in person and inducted the members of the TRC; after you had supported the work and process of the TRC; after millions of dollars had been spent on the TRC; after you had appeared before the TRC and explained your role in the war, after the TRC had completed its work and found you responsible for some of the evil of our society, and had recommended banning you from holding any public office for thirty years, you virtually rejected the Commission’s Report and refused to support its implementation. You disappoint me, Ma Ellen!

Your declaration frustrates the TRC’s effort to end the culture of impunity and promote justice. Why are you doing this against the institution of justice, Ma Ellen? History will not treat you justly on this issue.

As you are aware, because of your failure to support the Commission’s Report, and your declaration to run for a second term, Prince Johnson and other former warlords recommended for prosecution before a war crimes court are not thinking or talking about defending themselves in such a court; they are talking about running for office. You see what you are doing to Liberia and justice?

You’ve ignored the TRC’s recommendations, and you’ve decided to run for your second term. Prince Johnson and others have decided to follow your lead – to ignore the Commission’s Report. While you’re talking about your second term, they’re talking about their first term. You see what you’re doing to Liberia and the institution of justice? You see where you’re leading our country, Ma Ellen?

You already have international contacts, Ma Ellen. You have already made history – you are the very first elected female president of Africa. You have already established yourself on the African continent. You have already established yourself in Liberia. You’ve already made your mark on the world stage. What else do you want, Ma Ellen? What else? Why are you ignoring the TRC Report and deciding to run for a second term? Why, Ma Ellen?

Ma Ellen, my advice to you is this: Drop your plan to run for a second term and support Vice President Boakai as the next UP candidate for president. Then fully and publicly support the TRC Report, including the establishment of a war crimes tribunal. Help Liberia end the culture of impunity in this dramatic, historic and unprecedented manner. Please, Ma Ellen!

That’s all for now, Ma Ellen. Thanks for taking the time to read this long letter.

Regards,

Paul

Paul Yeenie Harry is a Liberian residing in Poland. He can be reached at pyharry@yahoo.com.