Calls For Speedy, Transparent, Impartial Investigation Into Allegation Against Suspended INCHR Chair

PHOTO: Suspended INCHR Chair, Cllr. Dempster Brown

MONROVIA— The Foundation for Human Rights and Democracy (FOHRD) is calling on the Government of Liberia to adhere to rule of law in its approach to circumstances leading to the indefinite suspension of Cllr. T. Dempster Brown, Chairman of the Independent National Commission on Human Rights (INCHR).

FOHRD categorically supports a speedy, transparent, impartial and comprehensive investigation into allegations of forgery and other administrative breaches as levied against Cllr. T. Dempster Brown, a FOHRD press release said recently.

FOHRD believes that as a premier institution tasked with protecting human rights, the INCHR must maintain the highest standards of integrity, accountability, and public trust and that allegations of this nature if go uninvestigated, undermine the credibility of the commission, erode its moral standing and weaken its mandate to protect vulnerable citizens.

But at the same time, FOHRD, as a human right protection and civil society institution wants to respectfully register it disagreement with the President of Liberia and the Executive Branch for willfully choosing to by-pass the basic tenet of succession  or legal clause of succession as enshrined in the ACT of 2005 that created the INCHR (Article X, No. 7) which states that “ The Vice Chairperson of the Commission shall be the deputy to Chairperson and perform all responsibilities of the Chairperson in his or her absence or incapacity.”

 By-passing this clear and comprehensive clause of succession and appointing a complainant in the case at hand, to steering the affairs of the Commission while investigation is ongoing; and resurfacing the seizure of compensation charges that were disposed of by the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia in the case Atty. Mohammed Al. Vs Cllr. Dempster Brown (12-19-2024) is totally unacceptable, is not in accord with law and precedent. The decision is legally wrong and resembles every trace of political interference and manipulation of the commission’s independence. The law is the law.

We must be reminded that addressing these same charges in its October 30, 2024 Ruling, the Honorable Supreme Court said “…it must also be noted that Article 10, at section 10.5 also provides that the ‘Chairperson shall make the administrative decisions for the welfare of the commission’. Distinguished from section 10.2, which provides for consultation with other commissioners, section 10.5 exclusively, mandatorily and commandingly conferred upon the chairperson authority to make administrative decision for the welfare of the commission.

The question then is, can it be said that the failure of the commission to continuously, without excuse or justification, report to work be considered as administrative and therefore falls within the province of the chairperson’s administrative decision-making power to withhold their salaries of such commissioners? To answer this question, we must first of all determine the intent of the statute framers. It must be noted that the lawmakers deliberately inserted in section 10.5 the clause ‘…for the welfare of the commission’ as the basis for conferring upon the chairperson the authority to make administrative decision for the commission. Definitely, the failure of the commissioner or commissioners to report to work will certainly affect the welfare of the commission, and therefore, action must be taken to correct that. According to the Act, the administrative authority falls within the exclusive domain of the chairman. This, in our mind, gives the chairperson, the Chief Administrative Officer of the entity, to monitor staff attendance which also includes the attendance of commissioners to work, considering the autonomy of the commission, it cannot be expected that the President of the Republic of Liberia exercise such authority of supervision over the administration of the commission without compromising its independence. This is exactly why the framers of the Act created the Human Rights Commission, conferring administrative authority to the Chairperson.”  Having stated our full agreement with the ruling of our distinguished colleague, we hold that the appellee was within the ambit of the law to order the seizure of the appellants’ salaries for their failure to report to work without any justifiable reason. 

We demand an impartial probe that holds all parties accountable, free from political interference and biases. The findings must be made public to demonstrate commitment of this government to the rule of law and good governance and the President to rescind the ill-advised decision.

FOHRD remains committed to monitoring this situation closely to ensure transparency prevails.