Monrovia — Medtech Scientific Liberia Limited, whose legal existence as 80% share beneficiary of revenue collected on imported goods and services into Liberia, remains a subject of debate and appears to have solidified its operation under the Boakai administration.
Medtech operations came under serious public scrutiny after it signed a 10-year contract with the Weah administration. The Medtech contract was criticized for gross violations of Liberia's Public Procurement and Concession Commission (PPCC) and Public Financial Management (PFM) Laws.
These violations were alleged to have led to the unofficial diversion of the country's share of funds that should have been collected under the agreement, raising concerns about transparency and legality of the deal with the former administration.
Even before taking office, the company's contract was the subject of debate among members of the ruling Unity Party, with many raising similar concerns about its legality and transparency.
However, it appears Medtech's operation has gained the confidence of some influential individuals within the Boakai regime following a Senate hearing whose outcome remains unclear.
Despite its 80% share, the company has yet to live up to its commitment to developing the system it had promised.
As if these suspicions and allegations were not enough, recent exchanges of communications between Medtech and the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA) speaks volumes.
The FIA had written Metech Scientific to provide certain information about its operations here based on what the FIA said were allegations made against Medtech.
Although Medtech, in a letter, denied those allegations, it questions the authority of the FIA, saying it has no jurisdiction to investigate acts or cases of extortion and corruption.
The FIA has since threatened administrative and criminal sanctions against Medtech and its General Manager, Atty. Oliver Rogers for hindering essential Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing investigations.
In a communication dated December 3, 2024, FIA Officer In Charge Mr. Mohammed Nasser argued that the Act creating his agency empowers it to request and receive information from government and non-governmental agencies and conduct investigations.
The FIA's warning came after Medtech claimed in a letter dated November 19, 2024, that the Agency did not have the authority nor the credibility to question it about corruption and refusal to refund customers over overcharged fees.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
In its response to Medtech, the FIA refuted the company's inappropriate characterization label against the Agency in Medtech's letter of November 19.
The FIA debunked Medtech's claims that it does not have the Authority nor the credibility to write the company about allegations of corruption and extortion, which are predicate offenses for money laundering, terrorism, and proliferation financing.
The FIA informed Medtech that it is an independent and autonomous agency established by an Act of the Legislature to serve as the central national agency of Liberia with functions and powers consistent with the FIA Act of 2021.
"In view of the foregoing, you are required to provide the FIA a full listing of your customer database to include (Name of Consignee, Volume of Goods, FOG, Amount Charged to include the 1.2%, etc.) ...," the FIA said.
Failure to comply, the FIA warned that Atty. Rogers and Medtech will consider their actions as an obstruction to essential money laundering and terrorist financing investigations.
The FIA warned that it will implement administrative and criminal sanctions against Rogers and Medtech, where applicable.
Meanwhile, Medtech has insisted that if the alleged overpayment were challenged and corrected by the Liberia Revenue Authority (LRA), the customers would be aware that the company is a contractor of the LRA, which has authority.
It contended that the normal, obvious recourse, therefore, would be for the customers to go back to the LRA for Medtech's alleged delay or refusal to accept the corrected charges approved by the LRA.
