Published: September 7, 2026
President Joseph Boakai should withdraw Alex Chersia Grant’s nomination to the Public Procurement and Concessions Commission.
If he refuses, the Senate should withhold confirmation until the serious questions surrounding Grant’s record are independently investigated and resolved.
This is not a declaration of guilt. Grant has not been convicted of a crime, indicted for corruption or cited in a published audit. He is entitled to answer every allegation against him.
But a seat on the PPCC is not an entitlement, and Senate confirmation is not a criminal trial. The question is not whether prosecutors can prove a case against Grant beyond a reasonable doubt. It is whether the president has selected someone whose record inspires the exceptional confidence demanded of an official entrusted with policing public contracts, concessions and public money.
On the evidence now before the country, the answer is no.
The procurement law requires PPCC commissioners to be persons “in good standing and of unimpeachable character.” That language was not inserted as decoration. It establishes a standard higher than the mere absence of a criminal conviction.
Yet Grant arrives at the commission carrying unresolved questions about land, academic credentials and public financial accountability — precisely the areas in which credibility, transparency and respect for lawful procedure matter most.
As Grand Gedeh County superintendent, Grant signed a 30-year agreement granting a businessman the right to cultivate cocoa on 500 acres claimed by surrounding communities as customary land. Residents and traditional leaders said they had not been consulted. The law requires community consent for transactions of that magnitude.
Grant later acknowledged that residents had not been informed, calling the failure a “procedural error.”
It was not a minor clerical oversight. Consultation is not a courtesy that officials may perform after signing away rights over community land. It is a legal safeguard against the arbitrary disposal of property belonging to citizens.
The agreement was eventually canceled, and the Liberia Land Authority revoked the development grant deed connected to it. The authority accused Grant and county land officials of bypassing required procedures and acting without authority.
Subsequent reporting showed that the Land Authority itself may have been deeply involved in producing the defective deed. Its chairman reportedly signed the document while a presidential moratorium on public land transactions was still in force. The process also raised questions about surveying, public notices, competitive bidding and even the legal existence of the entity named as the recipient.
Those findings do not clear Grant. They widen the scandal.
They suggest that the public has not yet received a complete account of how an irregular land transaction moved through multiple levels of government. Before anyone connected to that affair is elevated to an integrity institution, the entire process should be independently investigated — including the actions of Land Authority Chairman Samuel Kpakio and every official who prepared, approved or relied upon the deed.
There is also the allegation that residents gave Grant money while seeking a deed for their ancestral land. Grant acknowledges receiving funds but disputes the amount and says the money financed a survey and efforts to resolve a farming dispute.
That explanation should be tested against receipts, payment records, survey documents and the testimony of community representatives. The people never received the customary deed they sought. Instead, the disputed land was included in the now-canceled agreement with the businessman.
That sequence demands answers, not a promotion.
Grant also faces longstanding questions about his claimed bachelor’s degree from the University of Ibadan. The university reportedly said in 2021 that he neither graduated from the institution nor received the degree he claimed. Grant has denied academic fraud and called the controversy politically motivated.
The matter should be simple to resolve. Grant should produce the degree, transcript and official verification from the university. The Senate should obtain its own confirmation directly from the institution rather than rely on competing political claims.
Credentials are not a trivial issue. An official who seeks public trust must be truthful about his qualifications. If the allegation is false, Grant deserves to be cleared publicly. If it is true, no Senate committed to integrity could reasonably conclude that he possesses “unimpeachable character.”
Then there is Grand Gedeh’s County Council.
Eight of its nine members have accused Grant of withholding the county’s draft budget, budget-performance reports and bank statements. They have also demanded information about a reported US$400,000 electricity-management agreement.
Again, these remain allegations. But they go directly to Grant’s fitness for the PPCC.
The commission exists to demand compliance, inspect records, investigate procurement violations and promote transparency in the use of public funds. How can the Senate place Grant in judgment over other officials’ contracting practices while questions persist about whether he denied his own county’s legally constituted oversight body access to budgets, bank statements and an important public agreement?
The contradiction is impossible to ignore.
President Boakai came to office promising responsible government and a break with the practices that weakened public confidence in previous administrations. That promise cannot coexist comfortably with appointing officials to integrity institutions first and attempting to resolve doubts about their records later.
The PPCC must not become a political shelter for officials carrying unanswered ethical questions. Nor should “unimpeachable character” be reduced to meaning only that a nominee has not yet been convicted.
Grant’s nomination also presents the Senate with a test. Senators confirmed him as superintendent in 2024 despite the academic controversy. They must not treat this second hearing as a ceremonial repeat of the first.
Grant should be required to present the relevant academic records, account fully for the community money he received, explain his authority for signing the 500-acre agreement and produce the financial and contractual documents requested by the County Council.
The Land Authority, Ministry of Local Government, University of Ibadan and affected communities should also be heard. The hearing must be public, substantive and supported by documentary evidence.
Until those questions are resolved, Grant should not be confirmed.
The president should recognize the institutional damage this nomination already threatens to cause and withdraw it. Liberia does not lack qualified citizens whose records would strengthen public confidence in the PPCC rather than force the country to debate how much unresolved controversy an integrity commissioner may carry.
The issue is bigger than Alex Grant. It is about whether legal standards governing public integrity will be enforced as written or bent to accommodate political appointments.
A government cannot credibly demand transparency from contractors, concessionaires and public agencies while lowering the bar for those appointed to police them.
The PPCC needs commissioners who can ask difficult questions without becoming the subject of the same questions.
President Boakai should find one.
Discussion about this post