Tensions have reached a boiling point at the Independent National Commission on Human Rights (INCHR) as a group of commissioners has taken unprecedented legal action against Chairperson Cllr. Dempster Brown.
The dispute centers around Brown’s directive to withhold the June salaries of several commissioners, a move that has sparked a fierce constitutional debate and threatens to disrupt the commission’s operations.
The petition, filed before Justice Yusuf Kaba, alleges that Chairperson Brown’s actions violate Article 9 of the INCHR’s governing legislation.
This provision explicitly outlines the president’s authority to appoint seven commissioners, including the Chairperson, with equal powers to manage the commission’s affairs.
The petitioners, led by Atty. Mohammed Fahnbulleh and Dr. Cllr. Niveda Ricks Onuoha, among others, argue vehemently that Brown’s unilateral decision to withhold salaries infringes upon this constitutional framework.
The internal strife within the INCHR has been exacerbated by accusations of overreach and misconduct leveled against Chairperson Brown.
Majority commissioners contend that his actions are an affront to President Boakai’s directives and undermine the commission’s autonomy.
They maintain that only the president holds the authority to oversee such financial matters, not the Chairperson.
Cllr. Dempster Brown has not formally addressed the lawsuit, intensifying speculation about the motives behind his controversial directive.
Brown defended his decision by citing absenteeism and alleged misconduct among the affected commissioners.
He accused them of disseminating false information through media channels and violating the commission’s 2005 Act by engaging in secondary employment without authorization.
“In light of these observations, I have instructed the Human Resource Manager to withhold your salary checks until you choose to come to work or resign either from the commission or your other engagements,” stated Brown in a letter addressed to the Human Resource department.
The accusations further escalated as Brown singled out specific commissioners, alleging that their academic pursuits and additional government positions prevented them from fulfilling their duties effectively.
Commissioner Pindarous Allison was accused of simultaneously pursuing legal studies and teaching commitments, while Commissioner Niveda Ricks faced allegations of dual employment, a practice frowned upon within governmental structures.
The outcome of this legal battle is expected to have far-reaching implications for the INCHR’s internal governance and operational autonomy.
Observers suggest that a favorable ruling for the commissioners could signal a broader reevaluation of the Chairperson’s powers and responsibilities within the commission.
Conversely, a decision in favor of Chairperson Brown could cement his authority but potentially deepen divisions within the commission’s leadership.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the public is closely monitoring developments within the INCHR, viewing the outcome as pivotal to safeguarding the commission’s mandate and ensuring transparent governance.
The resolution of this conflict will undoubtedly shape the future trajectory of human rights oversight in the commission, underscoring the delicate balance between institutional independence and executive oversight.
By: G. Watson Richards
