Monrovia – The Specialized Committee established by House Speaker Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa to investigate the alleged alterations to the 2024 national budget appears to have raised more questions than it answered.
Gerald C. Koinyeneh – [email protected]
Last week, the House of Representatives paused deliberations on the draft recast budget for Fiscal Year 2024 after the Speaker seized a motion calling for the House to begin discussions. The Speaker’s decision, supported by a majority of lawmakers present, was intended to allow time for the committee to investigate allegations of budget alterations.
On August 17, 2024, Speaker Koffa, in consultation with House leadership, constituted this Specialized Committee to investigate claims that the 2024 National Budget had been altered. This action followed a complaint by Rep. Clarence Gahr (District #5, Margibi County), who chairs the House Public Accounts Committee. Rep. Gahr expressed concern about changes in oversight responsibilities and appropriations across several sectors.
In its report, the committee detailed the process leading to the passage of the budget in April and corroborated Rep. Gahr’s complaint that a motion made by Rep. James Kolleh of Bong County District #2 had been altered. The original motion, accepted by the plenary, mandated that each spending entity with appropriations in the budget submit a Quarterly Budget Performance Report to the National Legislature through a specified procedure and reporting template regulated by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). However, this was altered to require that the reports be submitted through the Legislative Budget Office (LBO) instead.
Budget Passage Timeline as Reported by the Specialized Committee
According to the committee, the “Engrossed Bill No. 2, entitled ‘An Act to Approve the National Budget for the Fiscal Period Beginning January 1, 2024, and Ending December 31, 2024, to Provide for the Expenditure of the Government of Liberia,’” was passed on Monday, April 29, 2024, at 14:50 GMT during an extraordinary session. On Tuesday, April 30, 2024, the Senate concurred with the House on Engrossed Bill No. 2 at 18:48 GMT. (See Exhibit 1).
Following this, the Speaker and the Senate Pro-Tempore met with the President, who proposed revisions to accommodate key presidential priorities. After this meeting, the Speaker and the Senate Pro-Tempore requested the Joint Ways & Means Chairpersons to work on revisions to the budget to include these priorities. On May 5, 2024, the Speaker signed the attestation to the budget document, which was subsequently signed by the Vice President, Secretary of the Senate, and the Chief Clerk.
However, the report did not clarify whether the joint committee presented the revised budget to their respective plenaries for approval before it was signed by the Speaker and the Vice President. On May 5, 2024, the Speaker departed the country for the United States. On May 7, 2024, the Engrossing Clerk transmitted the approved budget to the Office of the President for signature and publication.
What Happened After the Budget Was Transmitted to the President?
According to the committee, after the Senate’s concurrence, the budget was sent back to the House for onward submission to the Executive Mansion. However, following receipt of the budget by the Executive Mansion, the Engrossing Clerk of the House received a call from the Engrossing Clerk of the Senate, informing her that the Secretary of the Senate, J. Nanborlor F. Singbeh, Sr., had requested that the budget be recalled from the Executive Mansion due to “errors.”
The Engrossing Clerk of the House reported that she was authorized by her boss, Deputy Chief Clerk C. Cormicks Chea, to withdraw the budget from the Executive Mansion. On May 8, 2024, the Engrossing Clerk of the House advised Chea that she had concerns about the unorthodox manner in which the budget was being recalled, and he acknowledged her concerns.
The committee reported that on May 8, 2024, Deputy Chief Clerk Chea received from the Secretary of the Senate a document he believed to be the replacement budget. However, Chea did not verify the content of the document, nor did he inform the Chief Clerk, the Speaker, or the Deputy Speaker, who was acting as presiding officer in the Speaker’s absence. The document was then transmitted to the Executive Mansion on May 8, 2024.
The committee noted the original budget was retrieved by the Engrossing Clerk on May 8, 2024, and filed in accordance with the procedures of the Chief Clerk’s office. However, when inquiries began, the original budget document went missing from the file cabinet where it was stored, leaving only a copy available. The committee also noted that the Deputy Chief Clerk could not explain how the Speaker’s signature, which was affixed to the May 8, 2024, document, appeared when the Speaker was out of the country.
Key Findings
The committee found that the budget document of May 7, 2024, was improperly recalled from the Executive Mansion by the Office of the Chief Clerk, specifically by the Deputy Chief Clerk. The Deputy Chief Clerk had been fully warned that the recall attempt was improper and not in accordance with procedure.
Additionally, the budget document submitted on May 8, 2024, was a draft from the Joint Ways & Means and Finance Committee that had not been reviewed by the Office of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, who was acting in the absence of the Speaker. The budget was recalled and replaced without proper authorization, and the attestation page attached to the May 8, 2024, document cannot be explained, as the Speaker is said to have denied affixing his signature while out of the country.
Recommendations
Given its findings, the committee recommended that in the future, the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (MFDP) should revert to the Legislature to correct any wrongful classifications. The Office of the Chief Clerk should revise the procedure for transmitting laws to the Executive, and relevant staff should be subjected to disciplinary measures for gross negligence, as determined by the full plenary.
Call for Senate Investigation
Following the House Special Committee’s report, there have been calls for the Senate to launch its own investigation to determine on whose authority the Senate Secretary requested the House Chief Clerk’s office to recall the budget from the Executive. Some lawmakers, speaking on condition of anonymity, alleged that the alteration may have occurred in the Senate, given that it was the Senate Secretary who authorized the recall.
As the mystery over who altered the budget persists, deliberations on the recast budget remain stalled in the House. Since all financial bills originate from the House, the Senate cannot proceed with action on the recast budget either.
