Liberia’s challenges especially after this gruesome period of conflict are monumental, and many view the country now as a work in progress. However, the task at hand requires a significant shift from laws that tended to entrench dominance and control by a certain group within the society or a branch of government. It also requires a move towards openness in government where the masses are properly informed and enlightened about the use of their resources by their government, and are able to see tangible results from same through development projects and social services. This is what the Liberian people expect. 

During the course of electioneering in 2005, there were many campaign speeches and slogans that placed emphasis on creating a new Liberia where transparency and accountability would be at its core; and where corruption would be dealt with decisively if not eradicated. The prevalence of these aspirations was drawn from the overtly appearance of corruption in government even at the highest level, particularly under the transitional arrangement reached at the 2003 Accra meeting. These aspirations also grew out of the efforts by the international community to curb corruption and waste in Liberia under its GEMAP (Governance and Economic Management Plan) implementation. 

With a commitment to ensuring the continuation of GEMAP amongst others, and the mandate from the elections, it was clear what the Liberian people wanted and what the new leadership had in its plate. Thus began the effort to ensure transparency, accountability and good governance – four words that have become household terms in Liberia. But the reality sometimes is the willingness of the Johnson-Sirleaf regime to fully design and implement policies and actions that would actually supplement efforts aimed at ensuring accountability in government. 

And this has to do with the analysis made by the Auditor General of Liberia (AG) and the hailstorm of rebuke and reprimand he received in return from those in government including the president of Liberia and others within his professional circle. The AG’s analysis of the drafted budget submitted to the legislature gives a failing mark to its content, scope and implementation – an analysis not pleasant to elements in government. This therefore resulted into a response by the president, the foundation of which derives from a segment of The Executive Law of Liberia amended 1972 Section 53.3. Quoting President Sirleaf’s letter under the caption duties reads: “The

Liberia's Auditor-General, John Morlu

Dr. Amos Sawyer of The Governance Commission

Auditor General shall be the officer of government principally responsible for conducting post audits…” 

According to paragraph one of section 53.3, “The Auditor-General shall be the officer of the Government principally responsible for conducting comprehensive post audits, special financial investigations, reconciliation and analyses, and continuous audits on a routine basis. (highlights for emphasis of duties under the law) No doubt the president’s letter omits, if not intentionally, the full duties as stated in the law of the AG in order to suit a goal unknown to many and perhaps mislead the gullible in Liberia, thus undermining the credibility of the AG and using the law as a cover-up. 

What is perhaps questionable, however, is the conclusion in the president’s letter that “the Auditor General’s analysis (emphasis) of the Draft National Budget amounts to a pre-audit not mandated by the law.”  The law gives the AG the responsibility to provide analyses (plural), and is mute on when such analyses are performed and on what. Sure enough the AG’s letter to the president and leaders of the legislature constitutes an analysis, which is recognized in the presidents response to him and falls within his constitutional duties. How it is deemed as a pre-audit in the president’s view and to those within her cabinet remains to be defined to the Liberian people, or else efforts to fight corruption in Liberia would only be seen as lip service. 

Liberia has come a long way in formulating and implementing suitable policies that would ensure independence, autonomy and proper governance within the sectors of government. The outcomes of these policies have only consolidated the dominance and control of one of the branches of government as they were intended. Before 1956 when Liberia underwent a difficult period of financial security, it entered into loan agreements that placed its revenues under foreign receiverships, thus giving nationals assigned under such arrangement wide range of power including the review and approval of budget estimates prior to their submission to the legislature (Sawyer, 1992).  

The Bureau of Audits and its responsibilities emerged from these arrangements providing pre-audits that ended in 1956 as a result of an amendment under Chapter 32, Sections 740 –744 of the Executive Law of Liberia. In 1972 the General Auditing Office was established also through the amendment of the Executive Law with its responsibilities laid out under chapter 53 sections 1-11. An act of the legislature passed in 2005 amended the Executive Law of 1972 only changing the name of that office to the General Auditing Commission (GAC) as provided in the Constitution. Although this entity of government is to be autonomous under the Constitution of Liberia, its autonomy and independence have been successfully eroded as it had become highly affected by political interference and dominance by the executive branch of government. That the selection and appointment of the current AG was through an arrangement that involved the European Commission and the Government of Liberia is an indication of a shift to ensuring the autonomy and independence of the GAC, which is in line with the overall goal of ensuring transparency, accountability and good governance in Liberia.