THE SAME QUESTIONS UNITY PARTY ASKED WEAH MUST NOW BE ANSWERED BY BOAKAI

By Seltue Robert Karweaye Sr.

When the Unity Party was in opposition, President George Manneh Weah’s foreign travels were frequently subjected to intense public scrutiny. Questions were raised about the costs of presidential delegations, the necessity of international engagements, and the tangible benefits ordinary Liberians received from those trips.

Today, with President Joseph Nyuma Boakai occupying the Executive Mansion, those same questions remain relevant. The political party controlling the presidency may have changed, but the principles of transparency, accountability, and responsible public spending have not.

This is why the recent remarks attributed to Deputy Information Minister Daniel Sando, in response to Cllr. Tiawan Saye Gongloe’s questions about President Boakai’s participation in the 81st United Nations General Assembly, deserve serious public examination.

Rather than provide a detailed explanation of the President’s accomplishments, Sando reportedly suggested that Gongloe’s eyeglasses were so tainted that he could not see what the President brought back from the United States.

That response raises a fundamental question: Since when did asking a President to account for an international trip become an offense deserving personal ridicule?

Cllr. Gongloe did not ask President Boakai to return from New York carrying bags of groceries. He raised a legitimate question about the tangible outcomes of a publicly funded presidential engagement.

There is a considerable difference between mocking a question and answering it.

WHEN WEAH TRAVELED, ACCOUNTABILITY WAS THE STANDARD

During the administration of former President George Weah, opposition politicians and government critics repeatedly questioned the value of presidential foreign travels.

The concerns were straightforward: What agreements were signed? What investments were secured? What benefits would Liberia receive? How much did the trips cost taxpayers?

Those questions were legitimate then, and they remain legitimate today.

The Unity Party cannot reasonably expect Liberians to accept one standard of accountability when it is in opposition and another when it controls the presidency.

If presidential travel deserved scrutiny under Weah, presidential travel deserves scrutiny under Boakai.

If ordinary Liberians were entitled to demand results from Weah’s international engagements, they are equally entitled to demand results from Boakai’s engagements.

Accountability cannot be a weapon for opposition politics and an inconvenience when the opposition becomes the government.

This is the central issue Deputy Minister Sando should address.

GONGLOE IS ASKING A QUESTION THAT EVERY TAXPAYER HAS THE RIGHT TO ASK

According to Sando, President Boakai engaged Liberians in the diaspora, American officials, international leaders, and prospective investors during his visit to the United States.

Those engagements may be important. Diplomacy, international cooperation, and investment promotion are legitimate responsibilities of a President.

However, describing diplomatic meetings is not the same as demonstrating their results.

A government seeking to establish the value of presidential travel should be prepared to explain which meetings produced concrete commitments, whether any agreements were concluded, what financial or technical support was secured, and when Liberians can reasonably expect measurable benefits.

If agreements remain under negotiation, the government should say so.

If investment discussions are preliminary, the government should explain their status.

If the trip produced commitments that require additional negotiations, those commitments should be identified and the next steps communicated.

There is nothing unreasonable about these expectations.

Cllr. Gongloe’s question should therefore be understood within the broader democratic principle that public officials must account for the use of public resources.

MR. SANDO, THE ISSUE IS NOT GONGLOE’S EYEGLASSES. THE ISSUE IS GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY.

Deputy Minister Sando occupies a public office responsible for communicating government policies, decisions, and activities to the Liberian people.

That responsibility requires factual explanations, not personal attacks.

The public deserves more than clever expressions about eyeglasses and supermarkets.

If the President’s trip produced significant achievements, the Ministry of Information has an opportunity to document and explain those achievements.

What specific investments resulted from the engagements? Which international partners made identifiable commitments? Was any binding agreements signed? What follow-up mechanisms have been established?

These are questions that can be answered through official records, public briefings, and measurable commitments.

Sando’s reported response did not directly address those matters.

A government spokesperson should not confuse criticism of the President with hostility toward the country.

Nor should public officials assume that questioning government performance amounts to denying the importance of diplomacy.

The two positions are entirely compatible: Liberians can support international engagement while demanding accountability for its costs and outcomes.

THE UNITY PARTY MUST CONFRONT THE QUESTION OF POLITICAL CONSISTENCY

The broader controversy exposes an important test for the Unity Party.

When President Weah occupied the presidency, opposition scrutiny of presidential spending and foreign travel was presented as part of democratic accountability.

Now that President Boakai is in office, those standards must continue to apply.

It would be politically inconsistent to defend questions about Weah’s travel while dismissing similar questions about Boakai’s travel.

It would be equally inconsistent to criticize expensive presidential delegations under one administration while refusing to examine their costs under another.

The proper standard is not whether the President belongs to the CDC or the Unity Party.

The proper standard is whether public resources are being used responsibly and whether the government can demonstrate results.

This standard should apply to every Liberian President, regardless of political affiliation.

PRESIDENTIAL DIPLOMACY MUST PRODUCE MORE THAN PHOTOGRAPHS AND PRESS RELEASES

Liberia faces serious development challenges.

Young people need employment opportunities. Rural communities need accessible roads, functioning health facilities, electricity, safe drinking water, and better schools.

Against this background, citizens are entitled to ask how international engagements contribute to addressing these needs.

Presidential meetings can be valuable. They may open doors to investments, development partnerships, and diplomatic cooperation that take months or years to materialize.

But that reality strengthens the case for transparent reporting rather than weakening it.

The government should distinguish between meetings held, expressions of interest received, commitments secured, agreements signed, and projects actually implemented.

Each represents a different stage of progress.

A photograph with an investor does not establish that an investment has been secured. A diplomatic conversation does not automatically constitute a development agreement. And a promise of future cooperation should not be presented as a completed achievement.

The Liberian people deserve to understand these distinctions.

CONCLUSION: THE STANDARD MUST REMAIN THE SAME

Cllr. Tiawan Saye Gongloe’s demand for an explanation of the President’s foreign engagement raises an important accountability question.

Deputy Minister Daniel Sando has every right to disagree with Gongloe’s assessment and defend the administration’s diplomatic record.

But the strongest defense would be a transparent presentation of verifiable achievements.

The Unity Party should also recognize that the standards of accountability applied to President Weah cannot simply disappear because President Boakai now holds office.

What was a legitimate question yesterday cannot become an illegitimate question today merely because the political occupants of the Executive Mansion have changed.

Liberians should not have to choose between supporting their President’s international engagements and demanding evidence of their value.

Both are consistent with responsible citizenship.

Mr. Sando, the debate is not about whether Cllr. Gongloe can see through his eyeglasses.

It is about whether the government can clearly show the Liberian people what was accomplished with public resources.

The question remains simple: What did President Boakai’s trip deliver, what did it cost, and when will Liberians see the results?

Those questions deserve answers, not insults.

The standard of accountability must remain the same, whether the President’s name is George Weah or Joseph Boakai.