MONROVIA, LIBERIA – President Joseph Boakai’s decision to settle with suspended Central Bank of Liberia (CBL) Governor Aloysius Tarlue for a staggering $374,239 raises serious concerns about the administration’s commitment to accountability and responsible governance. This settlement, which follows the General Auditing Commission’s (GAC) revelation of nearly $300 million in financial irregularities at the CBL under Tarlue’s leadership, sends a troubling message about the prioritization of political convenience over public accountability.
The agreement, signed between the Government of Liberia and Tarlue, essentially compensates him for the remaining period of his tenure, which was cut short by his controversial suspension. The justification for the payout is that his removal was unlawful, a fact that the Supreme Court was set to rule on before the government opted for an out-of-court settlement. The implications of this decision are far-reaching, both legally and ethically, raising critical questions about how the Boakai administration intends to handle corruption and institutional integrity moving forward.
President Boakai’s administration, which campaigned on a promise of fighting corruption and restoring integrity in public service, now finds itself entangled in a costly legal blunder. By suspending Tarlue without adhering to due process, Boakai opened the government to potential legal repercussions. The settlement is not just an admission of legal miscalculation, it is an expensive one, with taxpayers footing the bill for what could have been an avoidable situation.
This decision comes at a time when Liberia faces pressing economic challenges, including a struggling exchange rate, rising inflation, and a dire need for infrastructural investment. That nearly $400,000, an amount that could have been used to improve healthcare, education, or public sector wages, is being handed to a former official whose tenure is marred by financial mismanagement, further underscores the misplaced priorities of the administration.
The irony of this settlement is glaring. Boakai had initially suspended Tarlue following an audit that uncovered unauthorized expenditures at the CBL. Now, rather than ensuring that those responsible for financial mismanagement are held accountable, the government has effectively rewarded Tarlue with a financial windfall. This raises a troubling question: was Tarlue’s suspension about accountability, or was it merely a politically motivated maneuver that backfired?
Further compounding the controversy is the confidentiality clause within the settlement agreement, which restricts public disclosure of its terms, except where legally required. This raises transparency concerns, as a government that claims to champion openness and accountability is now actively working to keep a major financial decision under wraps.
For many Liberians, this settlement represents a betrayal of the public trust. The government’s attempt to portray the payout as a mere resolution of a legal dispute does little to mask the broader issue: Boakai’s failure to navigate governance without costly legal entanglements. The fact that the administration chose to settle instead of defending its decision in court suggests either a lack of confidence in its legal standing or an attempt to quickly bury a scandal that could have further exposed its governance weaknesses.
Public outrage over the settlement is growing. Former Boakai supporter-turned-critic Matthew Nyanplu minced no words when he described the payout as a consequence of the President’s unlawful conduct. “Aloysius Tarlue walked away with US$374K because Oldman Boakai broke the law,” Nyanplu remarked, expressing regret over having supported Boakai’s candidacy. His frustration reflects a broader sentiment among many who expected the Boakai administration to be different from its predecessors.
The settlement also casts doubt on Boakai’s ability to lead an effective anti-corruption campaign. If a suspended official accused of financial mismanagement can walk away with a hefty compensation package, what message does that send to other public officials? Will future cases of alleged corruption also end with quiet settlements rather than public accountability?
Beyond the financial implications, the handling of Tarlue’s suspension and subsequent settlement speaks to a deeper problem of governance under Boakai. The administration appears to be operating on an ad-hoc basis, making critical decisions without proper legal foresight. The fact that the Supreme Court was poised to rule on Tarlue’s petition before the settlement suggests that the government either feared an unfavorable ruling or simply wanted to avoid further scrutiny.
Liberians have a right to demand answers. Why was Tarlue removed in the first place if his removal was unlawful? Why did the government opt for a settlement rather than defending its actions in court? What safeguards are in place to prevent future financial missteps of this nature?
Moreover, this settlement raises concerns about President Boakai’s decision-making approach. Is he truly in control of his administration, or is he being influenced by legal and political advisors who fail to consider the broader implications of their actions? His handling of this matter suggests a lack of strategic governance—a troubling reality for a nation that needs strong leadership to navigate its economic and political challenges.
The opposition is likely to seize on this controversy as further evidence of Boakai’s inability to govern effectively. The Coalition for Democratic Change (CDC) and other opposition figures have long accused the administration of inconsistency and lack of direction. This settlement only adds fuel to their claims, providing them with a concrete example of Boakai’s alleged incompetence.
The broader question remains: if Boakai’s government cannot manage a single personnel issue without incurring nearly $400,000 in legal costs, how will it handle more complex governance challenges? The decision to settle with Tarlue rather than defending the government’s stance in court sets a dangerous precedent, one that could encourage future officials to challenge their dismissals in the hope of securing similar payouts.
The Boakai administration now faces a critical test. Will it take steps to reassure the public that it remains committed to accountability and transparency, or will it continue down a path of legal and financial miscalculations? If this settlement is any indication, the early signs of Boakai’s presidency do not inspire confidence.
The Liberian people deserve a government that makes decisions in their best interest, not one that squanders public resources to correct its own legal missteps. Boakai’s promise of a new era of governance is rapidly eroding under the weight of costly settlements and governance miscalculations. If he does not take immediate corrective action, this administration risks being remembered not for reform, but for reckless decisions that drained public coffers.
James Andrew, a Liberian residing in the United States, stated, “The settlement with Tarlue is not just a financial blunder; it is a glaring symbol of Boakai’s mismanagement.” He added, “In a country where government accountability is already fragile, this decision undermines the very foundation of trust the administration sought to build. Liberia cannot afford to pay the price for presidential missteps, yet once again, the people are left bearing the cost.” He concluded the statement in a brief interview with Smart News Liberia on Thursday, January 30, 2025.
