A governance crisis is unfolding at the National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA) as allegations surface against its Executive Director, Ansu V.S. Dulleh. The embattled director is accused of creating a toxic work environment, mismanaging funds, and ignoring the established processes to guide the agency’s operations. As Liberia grapples with the need for effective disaster management, these allegations have raised serious concerns about the agency’s future and its ability to respond to national emergencies.
A thorough investigation by Verity News has uncovered a trove of financial documents linking Mr. Ansu Dulleh to allegations of significant financial improprieties and unethical practices. Among the most notable are claims surrounding a bus scandal involving US$81,000 and a doctored budget performance report relating to some US$1.3 million in outturn. The buses in question, Force Traveller 17-Seater, were considered unfit for use by the General Services Agency in January 2025. The investigation further revealed that the Minister of Post and Telecommunications was compelled to return two similar duty-free used buses to the vendor, Alliance Motor Corporation, in February 2025, after Minister Sekou Kromah claimed to have bought them for US$28,600 each according to receipts in Verity News’ possession. Critics now question how Dulleh could claim to have purchased two of the same buses from the same vendor for US$81,000. Additionally, Dulleh has been accused of submitting two conflicting budget performance reports to both the Legislature and the Executive for Fiscal Year 2024, which were primarily characterized by financial inaccuracies, including large expenditures for works already completed by his predecessor, Henry O. Williams.
A significant breakdown in leadership and communication at the NDMA is at the heart of the controversy. Dulleh is accused of excluding key leadership figures, namely the Deputy Executive Directors (DEDA and DEDO), from critical decision-making processes. This is seen as a direct violation of institutional collaboration and transparency principles, which are supposed to guide the NDMA’s operations. Sources claim that the ED makes all major decisions in isolation, leaving the deputy directors powerless and sidelined in the agency’s daily operations.
Insiders report that Dulleh has habitually held high-level strategic meetings exclusively with technical staff, bypassing the deputy directors entirely. This has resulted in policies and strategies that lack input from the full leadership team, ultimately affecting the agency’s efficiency and effectiveness. As decisions are being made in silos, there has been no opportunity for the deputy directors to weigh in on key issues, undermining the collaborative structure that is critical for the success of any governmental agency.
The lack of communication between the ED and the rest of the leadership team has only compounded the situation. Reports indicate that there have been no regular management meetings, leaving staff members in the dark about key developments. Worse, the ED has instructed employees to bypass their designated supervisors and report directly to him, further fracturing the agency’s organizational structure. This lack of clear communication has created an atmosphere of confusion, mistrust, and low morale among the staff, making it difficult for the NDMA to function effectively.
Adding to the turmoil are allegations of serious financial mismanagement and violations of the Public Financial Management (PFM) Law, which governs the handling of public funds in Liberia. The agency has failed to provide a detailed 2024 budget execution report, leaving questions about its financial transparency and accountability. The Public Financial Management Law mandates that government agencies present a clear breakdown of their budget expenditures, but NDMA has not complied with this requirement.
The 2025 budget process has also been scrutinized, as sources claim that the deputy directors were excluded from the budget formulation process. This violation of financial accountability principles has raised concerns about the ED’s control over the agency’s finances. Without formal discussions or documentation on financial priorities, it is unclear how funds are being allocated and spent.
The agency’s finances have come under further scrutiny with allegations that public funds are being expended without proper documentation or justification. The Deputy Executive Directors, supposed to oversee financial transactions, have reportedly been removed from the process, giving the ED unchecked control over the agency’s financial activities. This lack of oversight has led to concerns about the potential misuse of public funds.
In addition to financial mismanagement, Dulleh has been accused of disregarding established policies and regulations in staff appointments and promotions. Reports suggest that the ED has been making personnel decisions unilaterally, without adhering to the Civil Service Agency (CSA) guidelines. Unqualified individuals are allegedly being promoted and given responsibilities outside their areas of expertise, further undermining the agency’s operational integrity.
Even more concerning are reports that the ED has been making personnel decisions without informing the deputy directors, effectively removing them from the oversight process. This lack of transparency in staffing decisions has created a situation where key leadership positions remain unfilled, and personnel deployments are being made without proper coordination or approval. In some cases, employees have been sent on local and international assignments without the knowledge of their supervisors.
In October 2024, Dulleh reportedly revised several NDMA policies, placing multiple technical divisions under his direct supervision and stripping the deputy directors of their oversight functions. This unilateral restructuring clearly violates the NDMA Act, which outlines the agency’s operational and reporting structures. Critics argue that this move has further centralized power in the hands of the ED, leaving little room for collaboration or checks on his authority.
Amidst these leadership and governance failures, a toxic work environment has emerged within the NDMA. Sources claim that Dulleh has fostered a culture of fear and intimidation, with staff members threatened for questioning his decisions or policies. Allegations have surfaced that employees who are perceived as “enemies” of the ED have faced retaliation, and some staff members have even reported being subjected to verbal abuse.
The ED’s controversial remarks have only added to the growing sense of unease within the agency. Reports suggest that he has used profane language towards employees and made threatening statements, including claims that “women should not be allowed to serve in managerial positions” and that he would “kill for my power and even go after your dead body.” Such behavior has led to concerns about the ED’s fitness to lead an agency tasked with managing disaster responses and ensuring public safety.
On top of all this, the NDMA’s operations outside the capital have also been scrutinized. The Deputy Executive Director for Operations, who is responsible for overseeing the agency’s county offices, has reportedly requested updates on their status but has received no response from Dulleh. This lack of communication has left the county offices in limbo, with no clarity on how they are being managed or what resources they are receiving.
Meanwhile, the agency’s procurement processes have also come under fire. The ED is accused of making procurement decisions without involving the deputy directors, violating established procurement laws. Reports indicate that renovations at the NDMA headquarters are being carried out without the knowledge of the Deputy Executive Director for Administration, raising further questions about financial and operational transparency.
