The General Auditing Commission has sacked one of its legal counsels -- Cllr. Marcus R. Jones-- for " lacking "integrity" and Conflict of interest.

Cllr. Jones, in his summation to the jury that reached a unanimous verdict against this paper by awarding his client over US903, 000 for libel, said the equipment were in good working order when they were deliver, but that workers at the Ministry of Public Works stole vital parts to render them paralyzed. He insisted throughout the libel trial, as lawyer for Consolidated Group Inc., one of former President Charles Taylor's organized entities, that GAC had nothing to do with the case. He said his client, Consolidated Group Inc., delivered the equipment as agreed, although GAC audits quoting the now sacked Minister of Public Works, Lusine Dunzo, disputed the claim. The equipment, with the asphalt plant now in the scrap yard of the General Services Agency, were pre-financed in 2006, almost immediately after the government came to power.

In the letter of dismissal, Auditor General John Morlu informed Cllr. Jones that his decision to defend Consolidated Group INC - a company that the GAC audited and concluded that it purchased "scrap" equipment for Ministry of Public Works, thus defrauding government in the tune of US$877,945, was conflicting and further demonstrated that he lacks moral and ethical stance to fight corruption. He noted that Jones particularly reviewed the audit report and agreed with its findings conclusions and recommendations.

The Auditor General: "As of the date of this letter, you and GAC cannot work together because you chose a path to defend a company that connived to defraud the Government by selling scrap equipment that has not worked since March 2007, wasting US$877,945 of taxpayers' money. Your retainer-ship agreement with GAC is therefore terminated as of the date of this communication."

Jones, while defending Consolidated, disputed and contradicted the GAC findings on the US877, 945 road-building equipment Government paid for in 2006, saying contrary to the audits and its recommendation that the money be refunded because the equipment are useless, the equipment were delivered as agreed, and that workers at the Ministry of Public Works stole useful parts to render them dysfunctional.

But the Auditor General dismissed his argument, indicating it was a pure falsehood. " You also misinformed the jury and judge that this equipment had worked but Ministry of Public Works employees stole parts. All this was said at a time when you agreed with me that the full amount of US$877,945 must be restituted by Consolidated Group Inc. because it purchased and delivered scrap equipment."

He explained: "Consolidated Group Inc delivered a dump truck that could not dump. Asphalt Mobile Plant that was not mobile and has not worked to date. On and on the facts proved that these 13 pieces of equipment were scrap as even the date on frame was different from the date on seat belt by 13 years. Consolidated Group Inc defrauded the Government of Liberia and the Liberian taxpayers, including you, to the tune of US$877,945".

See full letter:

22 February 2010

Cllr. Marcus R. Jones

Jones & Associates Legal Consultant

Broad Street

Monrovia, Liberia

Dear Cllr. Jones:

This letter is a follow up to my earlier communication reminding you of your legal and ethical obligation to the General Auditing Commission (GAC) as it relates to the Consolidated Group Inc lawsuit against the New Democrat. As a GAC lawyer, you conflicted yourself and transgress ethical standards by your representation of Consolidated Group Inc in the aforesaid case against the New Democrat Newspaper. This we find reprehensible and unprofessional conducts we cannot condone.

The newspaper report, which is the subject of the suit, was based on GAC documents and reports on Consolidated Group Inc, which you as GAC Legal Counsel was privy to. This included GAC's audit of transactions between Consolidated Group Inc and the Ministry of Public Works, wherein Consolidated Group Inc was given US$877,945 in advance payments for it to procure and deliver 13 pieces of equipment.

Evidence gathered, which you were privy to as Legal Counsel, showed that Consolidated Group Inc sold scrap equipment and did not honor the terms and conditions as spelled in the MOU between it and the Ministry of Public Works. The former Minister of Public Works conceded that Consolidated Group Inc did not deliver as per specification. The bogus committee put together by the General Services Agency also admitted that its report on the said equipment was not factual and was misleading, as these equipment were not even working since 2007 March when they were delivered.

Consolidated Group Inc delivered a dump truck that could not dump. Asphalt Mobile Plant that was not mobile and has not worked to date. On and on the facts proved that these 13 pieces of equipment were scrap as even the date on frame was different from the date on seat belt by 13 years. Consolidated Group Inc defrauded the Government of Liberia and the Liberian taxpayers, including you, to the tune of US$877,945. I recommended that the full amount is restituted by Consolidated Group Inc. The decision to prosecute Consolidated Group or not is a matter of the executive prerogative, not that of the GAC.

Your arguments that the Government has not prosecuted Consolidated Group Inc were never the issue and it is not the issue, as it relates to your legal and ethical relationship with the GAC. Your further defense that the newspaper did not mention GAC as its source is also untenable and an unacceptable defense because you knew that GAC audited this VERY transaction and determined that the equipment was scrap, recommending that Consolidated Group Inc. refund the Government to the tune of US$877,945.

Herein are the facts. This particular report was given to you in a draft form to review and advice as to whether you agreed with the facts, findings, conclusion and recommendations. GAC in house legal team, Deputy Auditor General Nanka and I met with you in your office to discuss the draft. I maintained then and now that you were under legal and ethical obligation to cease representation of Consolidated Group in a matter involving the subject of GAC Audit of Consolidated Group. We brought this to your notice and you blatantly refused and continue your representation.

Realizing that you were conflicted in your defense of Consolidated Group Inc, you did not cross-examine the GAC auditor whom I sent to serve as a witness in this matter. Instead you made teasing remarks in your closing arguments that "auditor supposed to audit money, not equipment". You also misinformed the jury and judge that this equipment had worked but Ministry of Public Works employees stole parts. All this was said at a time when you agreed with me that the full amount of US$877,945 must be restituted by Consolidated Group Inc. because it purchased and delivered scrap equipment.

You have your rights as a Counselor-At-Law to defend your client in any way possible including raining insults on my auditors but you do not have the right to engage in activities or pursue legal representation that resembles, borders on or bear the full marks of conflict of interest when the very audit report you reviewed was the issue. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners rates conflict of interest as among the highest form of corruption. The desire for money must never be greater than a person's principle stands on issues. In this fight against corruption, we all have to take a side-you are either on the side of the corrupt or you are against corruption.

We have no more confidence in your integrity to support the independent efforts of the GAC, which serves as a frontline institution in the fight against corruption. Your actions to represent Consolidated Group Inc which was found in the audits to have defrauded the Government to the tune of US$877,945 clearly and convincingly demonstrates that you lack the commitment to fight corruption.

Further, your insistence against my advice to cease and desist in representing Consolidated Group Inc on these 13 pieces of equipment which was audited and determined to be scrapped equipment clearly shows that you are conflicted in your desire to earn money over the principle stands of the GAC against corruption.

As of the date of this letter, you and GAC cannot work together because you chose a path to defend a company that connived to defraud the Government by selling scrap equipment that has not worked since March 2007, wasting US$877,945 of taxpayers' money. Your retainer-ship agreement with GAC is therefore terminated as of the date of this communication.

I remain hopeful that the Supreme Court can finally clean up the judiciary, including ending the growing conflict of interest as demonstrated by you when you refused to stop defending a client on the same subject that you reviewed in the audits. You knew your action was wrong and for which reasons you refused to cross-examine GAC auditor, as doing so would have embarrassed you. You are just wrong and this is obnoxious.

Corruption fights back in so many ways, including indirect lawsuits against newspapers so that they do not publish audit reports. I informed you that it is INTOSAI (1977 LIMA and 2008 Mexico) requirement for an SAI to maintain close working relationships with the media and your representation of people suing media people for fighting corruption is also not in the interest of the GAC. It is hard to imagine how one can make a living suing institutions that are fighting corruption. There is a need for moral clarity on the issues of corruption-one can either be for it or against it and not both ways.

For me, as I have indicated in the past, I see the war on corruption as serious fight and I am prepared to lose this job over it. I am prepared to lose even family connections and personal relationships over the fight against corruption. There must be consequences for your action which undermines the work of the GAC. I have to choose between protecting the integrity of the GAC and retaining a lawyer whose primary motivation is chasing money irrespective of the conflict of interest issues involved. We will follow up this matter with the National Bar Association of Liberia.

I remain categorically unafraid of anyone in this war against corruption, which has undermined development in this Nation for many generations. I am sure you agree with me that we cannot build Liberia on the basis of corruption. GAC, under my leadership, will remain steadfast and independent in its work and therefore cannot associate with institutions and people who demonstrate a lack of integrity and commitment to fight against corruption.

I have attached for you my earlier communication on this matter, in which you refused to listen. It is unfortunate that GAC and Cllr. Jones have to part in this manner but that is the nature of the war on corruption. There is no room for compromise. It is a professional decision to protect the integrity, independence and reputation of the GAC.

I remain,

Sincerely,

John S. Morlu, II