By Precious D. Freeman
The Supreme Court is expected to rule shortly in the ongoing leadership crisis at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
During Tuesday, March 26 oral argument, the Youh-bench questioned whether or not President Joseph Boakai’s nomination of Emmanuel Urey Yarkpawolo as Acting Executive Director violated the EPA’s Act, specifically Section 16.
During the hearing, Yarkpawolo’s lawyers were asked if the appointment was based on a recommendation from the Policy Council, to which they responded negatively.
They contended that the President had the authority to appoint an Interim Executive Director until the Policy Council was formed, as outlined in Section 16.
The EPA Act stipulates that the President can only appoint an executive director after receiving recommendations from the Policy Council, which President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s administration adhered to in past appointments.
President Weah’s appointments raised questions about adherence to this process as well as the Policy Council’s reconstitution following the change of government in 2018 which plays a crucial role in vetting and recommending executive director candidates.
When asked what harm it would have caused Boakai if he had first constituted the policy Council before the appointment of Yarkpawolo since the council did not approve Tarpeh’s appointment by President Weah, Yarkpawolo’s legal team argued that Tarpeh’s appointment by President Weah was derived under the authority of the act to appoint an interim/Acting Executive Director.
The EPA Act requires that the President shall only appoint an executive director after the recommendation of the Policy Council, which shall submit to him a list of three names from which he shall choose one. President Sirleaf came to office in 2006, the Policy Council was constituted by her.
In the same year (2006) the Council vetted candidates for Executive Direct and based on their recommendations, the first ever tenured Executive Director, Mr. Ben Donnie, was appointed by President Sirleaf.
Donnie died in 2009 and upon his death, the EPA was run by officers in charge until the Policy Council again convened, vetted, and recommended a list from which another tenured Executive Director in person of Alfred Armah was appointed.
Unfortunately, in 2010, Armah died and following his death, the Policy Council again vetted and recommended a list from which President Sirleaf appointed 2010, Madam Anyaa Vohiri, as the third tenured Executive Director.
Madam Vohiri served her full tenure in 2010 and in March 2018, Mr. Nathaniel Blama, Sr. was appointed by President Weah as an Interim Executive Director between 2019 and 2020 with the nonexistence of the Policy Council.
Former President Weah appointed and dismissed Blama while serving as an Interim Executive Director and prior to the dismissal, no policy council had been constituted to appoint the Executive Director and in all this, President Joseph Nyumah Boakai too joined the queue of disregarding the procedure in appointing Executive Director of the EPA.
According to the Act that established the EPA, the policy council which is constituted by the President is responsible to appoint Executive Director, and not the President, even though he has the statutory right to nominate acting and interim Executive Director of the EPA.
During the arguments at the Supreme Court on March 26, 2024, Cllr. Larmii Kpargoi argued that the disputed position at the EPA has no existing policy council and as such, the current Executive Director was acting, which is not equivalent to a tenure position.
Cllr. Kpargoi told the Supreme Court justices that it is a policy council that can appoint the Executive Director.
When asked by Chief Justice, Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh, whether he has standing to raise the issue as a nominee, he said yes, as nominee, they have standings.
He said the statute of the EPA was not violated, adding that the Act gives the President power to nominate an acting Executive Director or interim Executive Director.
However, the lawyer representing the petitioner, Wilson Tarpeh, said the President is in clear violation of the Act that created the EPA, and as such, he must benefit from his tenure position.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that while the petitioner was enjoying his tenure position at the EPA, he was violently chased out of office by men believed to be supporters of Emmanuel Urey Yarkpawolo.
However, co-respondent Yarkpawolo has denies all and singular allegations of law and fact contained in any of the counts of the petition that were not made a subject of special traversal in his return.
He informed the court that it is public knowledge that the Policy Council of the EPA has not been reconstituted since the tenures of the majority of its members expired with the change of government from the Sirleaf Administration to the Weah Administration in January 2018.
In response to count five of the petitioner’s petition, the Co-respondent said it erroneously concluded that his appointment by President Weah constituted a seven-year tenure as provided for under Section 16 of the EPA Act, even though his recommendation for the job was never channeled through the EPA’s Policy Council recruitment process.
