Published: February 2, 2026
CAPITOL HILL, Monrovia — Liberia’s fragile anti-corruption architecture was jolted into open constitutional conflict Friday as the heads of the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission and the Law Reform Commission locked horns before lawmakers over a proposal that would give the president unilateral power to remove anti-graft commissioners, an authority critics warn could fatally weaken the commission’s independence.
By Gibson Gee and Lennart Dodoo
The discussion was centered on a proposed amendment to the LACC Act that would eliminate the current requirement for Senate approval, by a two-thirds majority, before a commissioner can be removed for cause. Instead, the amendment would allow the president to remove commissioners upon establishing “probable cause,” without legislative concurrence.
LACC Chairperson Cllr. Alexandra Zoe argued that the proposal impedes the commission’s independence.
“A proposed amendment granting the President or the Executive the sole authority to remove commissioners directly undermines the independence of the Commission, which is essential to its effectiveness,” Zoe told members of the House Joint Committee on Good Governance and Judiciary. “Security of tenure is not a privilege; it is a safeguard.”
Zoe argued that anti-corruption bodies, by their very nature, must be insulated from political pressure—especially from the very branch of government they are mandated to investigate.
She cited Article 6 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, as well as African Union and ECOWAS anti-corruption instruments, all of which require states to establish independent anti-graft agencies protected from undue interference.
“Allowing unilateral executive removal compromises the checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution and exposes the Commission to real or perceived political pressure,” she said.
Drawing international comparisons, Zoe pointed to Botswana, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Indonesia and Hong Kong, where removal of anti-corruption officials involves parliamentary oversight, judicial review, or both—never sole executive discretion.
She reminded lawmakers that Liberia’s existing LACC Act deliberately created a multi-institutional removal process to prevent abuse.
“The law did not do this by accident,” Zoe said. “It was designed to protect the Commission from arbitrary removal, precisely because of the sensitive and powerful interests we confront.”
While firmly opposing the tenure amendment, Zoe was careful to separate that issue from other reforms under consideration. She voiced support for proposals to criminalize illicit enrichment, strengthen prosecution procedures, and close loopholes that have long frustrated corruption cases.
But she warned that reform should not come at the expense of due process.
“Any removal effected without legislative review should be null and void,” she said.
That position drew a sharp rebuttal from Law Reform Commission Chairperson Cllr. Bornor M. Varmah, who accused the LACC leadership of elevating statutory provisions above the Constitution.
“We only have one organic law in this jurisdiction, and that is the Constitution of the Republic of Liberia,” Varmah told the committee. “All other laws derive their authority from it.”
Citing Article 56(a) of the 1986 Constitution, Varmah argued that officials appointed by the president to the executive branch serve at the will and pleasure of the president.
“If there is a conflict between statute and Constitution, the Constitution prevails,” he said flatly.
Varmah dismissed the notion that presidential removal authority would automatically weaken the anti-corruption fight, arguing instead that accountability demands flexibility.
“To suggest that removing a commissioner for malfeasance or nonfeasance undermines the anti-corruption fight is unfounded,” he said. “If an official is not performing, or is acting improperly, the president must have the authority to act.”
He further warned that requiring Senate approval for removals could itself trigger constitutional challenges, citing past disputes over the tenure and removal of Central Bank of Liberia officials that ended up before the Supreme Court.
The heated exchange underscored a deeper philosophical divide: whether anti-corruption institutions should be treated as ordinary executive agencies or as quasi-independent bodies requiring special constitutional protection.
The Law Reform Commission insists the current LACC Act is unconstitutional. According to the LRC, the requirement for a two-thirds Senate vote to remove commissioners improperly infringes on executive authority and conflicts with constitutional provisions governing presidential appointees.
That position has been articulated repeatedly by LRC officials in recent months.
At a high-level validation forum earlier this year, LRC Chairman Cllr. Bono Varmah questioned the legality of the LACC’s tenure protections, arguing that they contradict the Constitution.
“The Law Reform Commission has a statutory mandate to review all laws of the country, including the Constitution,” Varmah said at the time. “When the President directed us to review the anti-corruption legal framework under the Arrest Agenda for Inclusive Development, we recognized the urgency. The current instruments contain loopholes that weaken the fight against corruption.”
Among the most controversial proposals, Vllr. Varmah acknowledged, is the removal of what many consider constitutional-style protections for LACC commissioners, protections long viewed as untouchable pillars of Liberia’s anti-corruption framework.
Legal experts warn that if the tenure amendment is enacted, it could set a precedent for revisiting similar protections at other integrity institutions, including the Liberia Revenue Authority, the General Auditing Commission and the Public Procurement and Concessions Commission.
Many of these bodies operate under laws that provide fixed tenure and limited grounds for removal, features designed to shield them from political retaliation.
The LACC itself was reconstituted in 2022 under the administration of former President George Weah, but questions have lingered about the coherence of its enabling law, particularly overlapping tenure provisions and removal procedures.
During Friday’s hearing, lawmakers reviewed a package of reforms described as one of the most ambitious anti-corruption efforts in recent years.
The bills include provisions to criminalize illicit enrichment, redefine the burden of proof in corruption cases, revise statutes of limitation, amend the LACC Act, and strengthen the National Code of Conduct for public officials.
Under the proposal, public officials who acquire wealth disproportionate to their known income would be required to explain its source, failing which the assets could be confiscated.
“If you earn $200,000 a year and suddenly own a $500,000 property, the law presumes something is wrong,” Cllr. Varmah has said. “You must explain that acquisition, especially if it’s not reflected in your asset declaration.”
The reform package also grapples with long-standing gray areas around political appointments and conflicts of interest, including whether political party officials appointed to public office should be required to resign party posts.
To its credit, the Law Reform Commission has pursued an unusually inclusive process, consulting the LACC, the Office of the Ombudsman, the Asset Recovery Unit, the Ministry of Justice, civil society groups and international partners.
Representatives of the European Union, the Press Union of Liberia, CENTAL, and Accountability Lab at the validation welcomed the participatory approach, while urging that reforms translate into real enforcement.
Discussion about this post