The removal of LACRA’s former leadership was initially received in some quarters as abrupt, even politically charged. However, the audit findings now emerging from the General Auditing Commission provide a far more sobering context. Rather than isolated administrative oversights, the audit documents deep structural failures that cut across every layer of the institution’s operations. From the absence of board governance instruments to unreconciled bank accounts, non-competitive procurement, and tax non-compliance, the record suggests an authority untethered from the laws governing public institutions. In that light, President Joseph Boakai’s action reads less as political discretion and more as a corrective intervention compelled by evidence of sustained institutional dysfunction.
The General Auditing Commission’s audit of the Liberia Agricultural Regulatory Authority presents an institution that functioned for an entire fiscal year without strategic direction, operational discipline, or performance accountability, creating conditions under which public resources were expended without a coherent framework for results or impact.
The audit states unequivocally that management “operated the entity without evidence of approved strategic and operational plans for the period under audit.” Under Liberia’s Public Financial Management Act, every government entity is required to prepare strategic plans defining its mission, goals, objectives, outputs, and activities. The GAC found that LACRA failed to meet this basic requirement, meaning that the authority’s long-term vision, medium-term priorities, and short-term deliverables were neither articulated nor formally approved.
Reacting to this finding, the current LACRA administration headed by Director General Dan T. Saryee has acknowledged that the absence of strategic and operational planning was a critical institutional weakness inherited in 2025. Management says that since assuming office, it has commenced the development of a comprehensive strategic plan aligned with national development priorities, adding that “the audit recommendations are keenly noted and are actively guiding reforms now underway.”
Auditors warned that the absence of strategic and operational plans meant that “long, medium and short-term goals of the entity may not be identified, pursued and implemented,” thereby impairing the achievement of the organization’s objectives. In practical terms, this meant that activities undertaken by LACRA during the audit period could not be reliably linked to defined policy outcomes or evaluated against approved benchmarks.
Officials in the current administration say this gap has since been addressed through the introduction of structured annual workplans and performance targets, which management describes as a fundamental shift from ad hoc operations to results-based management. According to LACRA, these changes represent a “game-changing policy direction” intended to restore purpose and accountability across departments.
The planning vacuum was compounded by the absence of a Monitoring and Evaluation framework. The GAC reported that there was “no evidence of a functional Monitoring and Evaluation Committee” and no approved annual monitoring plans or periodic activity reports. Auditors further observed that there was “no evidence of monitoring and evaluation of activities cataloged in the approved strategic and operational plans,” a finding rendered more severe by the fact that such plans did not exist in the first place.
The Commission cautioned that, in the absence of monitoring and evaluation, “project deliverables may not be achieved up to approved specifications and within approved timelines,” and that “value for money may not be achieved.” This failure, the report noted, increased the risk that project resources could be misapplied or misappropriated without timely detection.
The Saryee-led administration says the absence of monitoring and evaluation systems was one of the earliest institutional gaps it sought to correct. Management notes that M&E functions have since been reintroduced, with reporting mechanisms established to track implementation of programs and projects. Officials describe this as a deliberate effort to ensure that LACRA’s outputs are measurable, verifiable, and aligned with approved objectives.
Human resource management failures further deepened institutional weakness. The audit found “no evidence of approved human resource policies and procedures” to guide recruitment, deployment, discipline, or promotion of staff. The GAC also observed that management had not adopted the Civil Service Standing Orders, which provide standardized rules for personnel management across government institutions.
As a result, auditors warned that “failure to develop approved policies and procedures to guide the activities of the entity may lead to arbitrary decisions that may be non-compliant to applicable laws and regulations.” The absence of approved job descriptions meant that staff responsibilities were not clearly defined, impairing productivity, accountability, and performance assessment.
In response, the current administration says it has since prioritized the formalization of human resource policies and job descriptions. LACRA management confirms that staff roles are now clearly defined and aligned with institutional objectives, describing these steps as part of a broader effort to professionalize the authority’s workforce.
Performance management was effectively nonexistent during the audit period. The GAC stated that there was “no evidence that Management conducted performance evaluation of its employees during the fiscal periods under review.” Without performance appraisals, the audit warned, poor performance could go unnoticed, employee development plans could not be properly designed, and promotions or demotions could occur on a discretionary basis.
Director General Saryee’s administration says performance appraisal systems have since been introduced, with periodic evaluations now tied to training, deployment, and accountability measures. Officials say this represents a cultural shift toward merit-based management and institutional discipline.
The audit also highlighted the absence of a documented training and development plan. According to the GAC, “no evidence” was provided that management had assessed staff capacity needs or designed structured training programs. This failure, auditors noted, undermined staff competence and weakened internal control systems.
Management under the new administration says capacity-building initiatives are now being rolled out, informed by the audit’s findings and aimed at closing identified skills gaps.
Payroll administration presented additional risk. The GAC observed that payroll was managed manually using spreadsheet software, without an automated centralized payroll system. Auditors further found weak segregation of duties, noting that there was no evidence that payroll originated from the Human Resource Unit and was independently reviewed by finance or internal audit before payment.
Attendance controls were equally weak. The audit documented irregularities in attendance logs, including missing signatures, incomplete entries, and lack of periodic validation. The GAC warned that “failure to maintain and monitor comprehensive personnel attendance records may result in compensation of non-deserving employees.”
LACRA’s current management says payroll and attendance controls have since been strengthened, with reforms aimed at eliminating discretion and improving verification.
In its final assessment, the GAC determined that the absence of planning, monitoring, and performance accountability structures fundamentally undermined LACRA’s institutional effectiveness. These documented failures now form part of the evidentiary basis supporting President Joseph Boakai’s decision to dismantle the former leadership arrangement at the authority, even as the current administration says it is using the audit as a roadmap for sustained reform.
