01/06/2026
We found this Interesting piece piece released by the Liberian Investigator newspaper and we thought to share our thoughts. Two staff or executives whose administration broke down the Liberian people company had the nerves to go after the same institution in the name of requesting for backpay after what they made the institution suffered. How do these people see this country? Their elephant meat? Please read the article below:
"There are court rulings that resolve disputes. Then there are rulings that expose dangerous fractures in a nation’s moral and institutional logic.
The Commercial Court’s decision awarding nearly $800,000 to two former executives of the National Oil Company of Liberia belongs firmly in the latter category.
This case is not merely about severance pay. It is about whether public institutions in Liberia still possess the ability to distinguish between lawful entitlement and catastrophic failure. It is about whether accountability means anything when the very officials associated with the destruction of a state enterprise can later emerge from the courts with financial windfalls financed by the Liberian taxpayer.
That is the troubling message this ruling now sends.
Liberians have not forgotten what NOCAL became by 2015. The company was not simply struggling. It was collapsing under the weight of reckless administration, runaway spending, and executive excess. Revenue had deteriorated, yet hiring accelerated. Benefits remained extravagant. The wage bill exploded to approximately $7 million annually while the institution itself drifted toward insolvency. Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf ultimately intervened personally, describing the company as financially “scrapped” and ordering the retirement of the entire management team alongside a 50% reduction in severance payments.
That intervention was not political theater. It was a national emergency response to institutional ruin.
Most executives accepted the reduced payout and moved on. Two did not.
Former NOCAL Legal Advisor Cllr. Idella Cooper and former Vice President for Administration Vida Mensah rejected the compromise and pursued litigation for a decade. What began as a disagreement over approximately $85,000 each has now, through accumulated penalties and interest, transformed into a combined court award of $764,762.
And therein lies the outrage.
The ruling does not merely compensate two former officials. It effectively rewards refusal to compromise, rewards procedural delay, and rewards executives tied to one of the most notorious examples of state-enterprise collapse in modern Liberian history.
Even more astonishing is what the court appears to have ignored.
The judges had before them a clear presidential finding of mismanagement. They had before them the financial condition of a bankrupt state institution. They had before them evidence that NOCAL attempted settlement despite operating under fiscal distress. They also had before them the obvious public-interest implications of allowing decade-old claims against a failed state entity to balloon into massive liabilities.
Yet none of those considerations appear to have meaningfully constrained the outcome.
The consequences now extend far beyond this single case.
NOCAL’s management structure during its years of decline involved numerous senior officials. Many accepted reduced settlements in good faith because they recognized the condition of the institution and the gravity of the national circumstances. The Commercial Court has now effectively informed them that compromise was a costly mistake. Had they simply refused settlement and waited long enough, they too might have walked away with multiplied awards from the public treasury.
That is not justice. That is an incentive structure for institutional opportunism.
The larger danger is fiscal. Liberia is not a wealthy state experimenting with surplus revenue. It is a country struggling with unemployment, infrastructure deficits, weak healthcare systems, underfunded schools, and enormous development pressures. Every unnecessary liability imposed on the public purse carries consequences for ordinary citizens who had absolutely nothing to do with NOCAL’s collapse.
And yet those citizens may now be asked to finance enormous payouts to the very class of officials under whose watch the institution imploded.
One cannot escape the moral contradiction.
A nation that routinely asks struggling market women, civil servants, and ordinary taxpayers to endure austerity cannot credibly justify extraordinary compensation for failed executives while invoking technical legal formalism divorced from context and consequence.
Courts are not supposed to function in a vacuum. Justice requires interpretation not only of contracts, but of circumstances, equity, public interest, and institutional reality. Law stripped entirely of context ceases to become justice and instead becomes an expensive exercise in procedural rigidity.
The Commercial Court had other options available. It could have recognized the extraordinary insolvency conditions surrounding NOCAL. It could have weighed the implications of a ten-year delay. It could have addressed the unresolved jurisdictional concerns surrounding the matter. It could have balanced contractual rights against overwhelming public-interest considerations.
Instead, it delivered a ruling that may now trigger a dangerous chain reaction of copycat claims from former officials tied to the same failed enterprise.
Liberia must now confront a difficult but necessary question: What exactly does accountability mean in this republic?
Because if institutional collapse can eventually become financially rewarding for the officials associated with it, then the country is not merely facing a legal problem. It is facing a profound crisis of governance, ethics, and public trust"
Credit: Investigator
