Liberia's long and fragile struggle to build credible anti-corruption institutions has reached a defining moment. The heated clash at the House of Representatives between the leadership of the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) and the Law Reform Commission over proposed amendments to the LACC Act is a test of whether Liberia's reform agenda will deepen accountability, or quietly centralize power at the expense of institutional independence.
The controversy surrounds a proposal to amend the LACC Act to allow the President to remove anti-corruption commissioners upon a finding of "probable cause," without the current requirement of a two-thirds Senate concurrence. Proponents argue this aligns the law with the Constitution, particularly Article 56(a), which provides that officials appointed by the President serve at the will and pleasure of the President. Opponents warn that such a change would fatally weaken the independence of the country's principal anti-graft body.
Both sides raise arguments that deserve careful consideration. The Constitution is supreme. No statute may override it. Where a law conflicts with the Constitution, the law must yield. That principle is beyond dispute. Yet constitutional supremacy does not automatically mean that every public institution must be stripped of tenure protections, nor does it require that all executive appointees be treated identically, regardless of function.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
Anti-corruption bodies occupy a unique and sensitive space in governance. They are tasked with investigating abuse of power, often within the very branch that appoints their leadership. For that reason, many democracies, young and old, have deliberately designed their anti-graft institutions with enhanced safeguards against arbitrary removal. These protections are not privileges for officeholders; they are structural defenses for the public interest.
The existing LACC Act reflects that logic. By requiring Senate concurrence for the removal of commissioners, the law sought to balance executive authority with legislative oversight, insulating the Commission from unilateral political pressure while still allowing removal for cause. Whether that framework is constitutionally perfect is a legitimate question. But dismantling it entirely, without replacing it with equally strong and transparent safeguards, risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The Law Reform Commission's concern about constitutional conflict cannot be dismissed lightly. Liberia's history is littered with poorly drafted laws that invite litigation and institutional paralysis. If the current removal provisions are vulnerable to constitutional challenge, lawmakers have a duty to address that weakness. However, reform should be guided by a central question: does the proposed solution strengthen accountability or merely simplify control?
Granting sole removal authority to the President, even with a "probable cause" standard, raises serious red flags. Probable cause is a relatively low threshold, traditionally used to justify investigation or arrest, not to terminate officials leading an institution meant to check executive power. Without independent review, by the Legislature, the Judiciary, or both, such authority could easily be perceived, fairly or unfairly, as a tool for political retaliation.
Perception matters. Anti-corruption work depends not only on legal powers but on public trust. If commissioners can be removed unilaterally by the Executive, the Commission's credibility will suffer, especially when investigations touch powerful interests. Even the appearance of vulnerability can chill enforcement, encourage self-censorship, and embolden corruption.
This does not mean commissioners should be untouchable. No public official should be immune from accountability. Nonfeasance, malfeasance, or abuse of office must have consequences. But accountability mechanisms must be fair, transparent, and insulated from partisan influence. The question is not whether commissioners can be removed, but how--and by whom.
Liberia's lawmakers should resist the false binary presented in the current debate: total executive control versus institutional paralysis. There are constitutional pathways that preserve both presidential authority and institutional independence. Judicial review of removals, time-bound investigations, legislative confirmation after removal, or hybrid models involving independent tribunals are all options worth serious exploration. Reform is not a race to the simplest solution; it is a responsibility to the most durable one.
The broader reform package before the House, criminalizing illicit enrichment, strengthening asset recovery, closing loopholes in prosecution, and tightening the Code of Conduct, is commendable and long overdue. Liberia cannot continue to hemorrhage public resources with impunity. But these reforms will ring hollow if they are paired with structural changes that weaken the very institutions meant to enforce them.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
History offers a cautionary lesson. Institutions hollowed out in the name of efficiency rarely recover their authority. Once independence is surrendered, it is difficult to reclaim. Liberia has spent years rebuilding trust in its integrity institutions after periods of political interference. That progress should not be reversed, intentionally or inadvertently.
As the House deliberates, it must rise above personalities and immediate political calculations. This debate is not about the current leadership of the LACC or the preferences of any administration. It is about the architecture of accountability Liberia will leave to the next generation.
The Liberian Investigator takes a clear, principled stand: anti-corruption reform must strengthen independence, not subordinate it. Any amendment to the LACC Act must be constitutionally sound and must also preserve robust, multi-layered safeguards against abuse of power. Lawmakers should pause, broaden consultations, and refine the proposal to ensure that Liberia's fight against corruption emerges stronger, not more vulnerable.
