Morlu’s civil society group questions why others face arrest and prosecution while allegations against the President’s son remain unresolved
MONROVIA, LIBERIA — The Solidarity and Trust for a New Day (STAND), a civil society organization associated with activist Mulbah Morlu, is demanding that Jojo Boakai, son of President Joseph Nyuma Boakai, publicly address allegations circulating in two separate videos purportedly involving individuals claiming connections to cocaine trafficking.
STAND argues that Jojo Boakai should respond to the allegations rather than allow the launch and promotion of his SPARK Foundation to overshadow questions that have emerged in the public domain.
The controversy raises a fundamental question for Liberia’s law enforcement authorities: Will allegations involving the President’s son receive the same level of scrutiny as those involving other individuals accused of drug-related offenses?
According to the concerns raised by STAND, the individuals featured in the two videos allegedly accuse Jojo Boakai of involvement in drug-related dealings and threaten retaliation against him and members of his family over an alleged dispute involving money and drugs.
The authenticity of the videos, the identities and credibility of the individuals making the accusations, and the substance of their claims require independent verification. The allegations do not, by themselves, establish that Jojo Boakai committed any crime.
Nevertheless, STAND maintains that the seriousness of the claims warrants an impartial investigation rather than silence.
Why Has There Been No Publicly Confirmed Investigation?
STAND is questioning why, while other individuals accused in drug-related cases have reportedly faced arrest, investigation, or prosecution, there has been no publicly confirmed investigation of Jojo Boakai in connection with the allegations cited by the organization.
The group argues that the President’s son should not enjoy preferential treatment because of his family connection to the presidency.
For STAND, the issue is not whether Jojo Boakai should automatically be considered guilty, but whether the allegations against him have been examined by competent authorities with the same seriousness applied to other suspects.
The organization’s position raises important questions for the Liberia Drug Enforcement Agency and other relevant law enforcement institutions.
Have the videos been examined for authenticity? Have investigators identified and interviewed the individuals making the accusations? Have the claims been assessed against independently verifiable evidence? Has Jojo Boakai been contacted to respond?
These are questions that authorities could address through a transparent account of any investigative steps taken, while protecting the integrity of any ongoing investigation.
As of the information presented in STAND’s allegations, there is no independently verified basis here to conclude that Jojo Boakai has committed a drug-related offense or that authorities have deliberately shielded him from investigation.
However, the absence of publicly confirmed information about an investigation leaves legitimate questions that the relevant authorities should clarify.
SPARK Foundation Under Scrutiny
STAND has also challenged the timing and public presentation of the SPARK Foundation associated with Jojo Boakai, arguing that philanthropic activities should not become a substitute for accountability.
The organization contends that the promotion of a humanitarian initiative cannot, by itself, answer serious questions raised by allegations circulating publicly.
STAND has characterized the foundation’s presentation as a potential attempt to cultivate a positive public image while the allegations remain unresolved.
The group has gone further by describing the initiative as a possible “humanitarian fraud,” a characterization that reflects its criticism and is not an established finding of fraud.
The central issue, according to STAND, is whether the foundation’s public image is being used to divert attention from questions that require independent answers.
But charitable work and allegations of criminal conduct must be assessed separately. The existence of a foundation does not establish wrongdoing, just as philanthropic activities cannot exempt an individual from legitimate scrutiny.
STAND is also demanding transparency about the foundation’s funding sources, including whether its activities are financed through private donations, public resources, corporate contributions, or other means.
The organization’s questions have not, on their own, established that the foundation has received illicit funds or misused public money. Any such claims would require documentary evidence and independent investigation.
A Test of Equal Justice
The controversy presents a broader challenge for the Boakai administration, which has faced questions about public confidence in the fight against drug trafficking.
For critics demanding accountability, the central concern is whether law enforcement operates independently when allegations involve people connected to powerful political figures.
If authorities investigate allegations against some individuals but fail to clarify whether similarly serious claims against others have been assessed, public suspicion of selective enforcement may grow.
That concern does not mean every accusation must lead to an arrest. Investigations and prosecutions must be guided by evidence, applicable legal standards, and due process.
But where credible allegations emerge, authorities should be prepared to explain whether they have been assessed and, where appropriate, what action has followed.
The presidency should also recognize that family connections can make transparency especially important when allegations involving a president’s relatives become a matter of public concern.
STAND Demands Answers
STAND’s message is that Jojo Boakai should address the allegations directly and that the appropriate authorities should establish the facts independently.
The organization wants the public to know whether the videos have been investigated, whether the allegations are supported by evidence, and whether any action is warranted under Liberian law.
It also wants greater transparency concerning the SPARK Foundation’s financing and activities, although any financial concerns must be supported by verifiable evidence.
Ultimately, the issue should not be decided by political loyalty, public relations, or accusations exchanged in the media.
Jojo Boakai is entitled to the presumption of innocence, but he is not entitled to immunity from legitimate questions simply because he is the President’s son. Likewise, the authorities must neither presume his guilt nor dismiss credible allegations without examination.
For the Liberia Drug Enforcement Agency and other relevant institutions, the immediate responsibility is to establish whether the claims warrant investigation and to act according to the evidence.
For the presidency, a transparent response could help address concerns about unequal treatment under the law. Jojo had earlier denied link to the videos and the allegations made against him.
And for the SPARK Foundation, clarity about its funding, governance, and activities would help the public assess its work independently of the controversy surrounding its founder.
The question confronting Liberia is therefore straightforward: Will allegations involving a member of the President’s family receive a credible, impartial assessment, or will the public be left to draw its own conclusions in the absence of answers?
