About Liberia Today

Enter The Liberian Situation Room

Now Available On DVD: Order Your Copy: Click For Details

Patrick Nimely-Sie Tuon

Editor And Publisher

About Liberia Today Online

Maryland, United States Of America

March 5, 2010

Frontpage Africa's Smoking Gun The Peter Korvah Factor

By Anna T. Swen-Thomson

Dear Editor-In-Chief ;

Please allow me a space on your widely read news medium to express my concern regarding the lawsuit filed by Dr. Chris Toe, former Minister of Agriculture of Liberia.

Nearl two weeks ago , the Liberian public was alerted regarding a defamation lawsuit filed by former Liberian Agriculture Minister Dr. Chris Toe against FrontPage Africa (FPA), one of Liberia’s leading news outlets. The plaintiff is seeking specified damages totaling US$2million. The suit alleges libel, particularly defamation of character, based on news articles published by FPA. In response to the lawsuit, FPA unleashed a public relations campaign designed for the Liberian people and its online readership to keep seeing things its way.

Those who have been following FPA’s epic reporting on what it described as the corrupt activities of Dr. Toe have been wondering where FPA is getting all its information. And then it happened. In one of its sensational front-page headlines, FPA revealed its primary source of information against Dr. Toe by naming Mr. Peter Korvah, Deputy Minister of Agriculture. The revelation of whom FPA usually called one of its “credible” sources came in the form of a letter dated April 4, 2007 purportedly written by Mr. Korvah to Madam Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, President of Liberia.

Any reasonable person reading Mr. Korvah’s letter to President Sirleaf, deemed as the “smoking” gun by FPA, will find it easy to detect that it is a vendetta driven document replete with scanted information inadequate to build any serious case of corruption against anyone. Did FPA investigate the substance of Korvah’s allegations and find them credible to warrants its “anti-corruption” sensational articles against Dr. Toe? By writing such a letter and presenting it to the president make Mr. Korvah a patriot or “whistle-blower”, as FPA would have us believe? Or, is it a self-serving move on the part of Mr. Korvah to demonstrate the relevance of his education, training, skills and knowledge in ably administering the agriculture ministry. Or, just like some opportunistic “deputy”, who to damage the minister in order to be given a chance to lead the ministry.

Mr. Korvah presents himself to the president as a person anxious to lead, too good to be a deputy, and can’t wait to be the minister proper. If that was his intent then he blew it big time; he lost a wonderful opportunity to make his case against Dr. Toe by exposing his own inadequacies. The letter lacks specifics, and is saturated with generalities. The tone, falsehoods and innuendos, and the street jargons embedded in the letter failed to present Mr. Korvah as a person with a blowing-blowing mindset and possessing of critical thinking, fairness and the strength of objectivity expected of a high public servant. Did FPA misread Mr. Korvah’s letter to the President as its best proof of corruption against Dr. Toe?

Mr. Korvah makes some derogatory remarks in his letter to the president, such as when he described a computer technician he said he hired as “the boy, “The boy who I brought…” As one digs deeper into the Korvah’s letter and his ill-fated attempt to tie Dr. Toe to corruption, the contents appear confusing and the points he wishes to make even more elusive with the constant use of innuendos and exaggerations. Where he tries to make a case of corruption, he leaves out the specifics. For example he wrote, “… allowance of CARI staff is sometimes diverted, sometimes to pay some of the newly-hired associates of the Minister…” Where were these allowances diverted to, and who did the diversion? How much of the allowance was used to pay these “newly hired” associates”?

Furthermore, he repeatedly wrote that the ministry account was “discretional and private” only to the minister. Yet, in the same letter, he stated and admitted that the vouchers used to withdraw money from the ministry account were bearing the signatures of the minister and the controller. In addition, Mr. Korvah said that Dr. Toe did things without consulting others, but by Korvah’s own admission (in his letter), Mr. Korvah said that he himself assigned a motorbike to the Bureau of National Fisheries but did not say whom he consulted or whether he used the proper procedure. In spite of the contradictory statements, Mr. Korvah claimed, “withdrawals of all sorts” were going on. So what this suppose to mean, “Withdrawals of all sorts?” In order to run the ministry, such as pay employees and buy supplies and equipment, shouldn’t withdrawals occur from the ministry account? By not specifying what was the nature of the withdrawals, Mr. Korvah wanted the president to believe that financial transactions at the ministry were fishy and directed by Dr. Toe for his personal gains.

From the top to the bottom of Mr. Korvah’s letter, which is the “smoking gun” as portrayed by FPA, it is hard for one to perceive Mr. Korvah as a patriotic citizen trying to fight against any irregularities or to stamp out corruption. Mr. Korvah’s letter betrays his hidden anger, hatred and perhaps extreme jealousy of Dr. Chris Toe, whose downfall he sought from the very get go. FPA is camouflaging the Korvah letter as a work of a patriotic citizen fighting corruption for the love of his country. Many people, including myself, see it as a ploy planned and staged by Mr. Korvah to promote himself to the president, as the best person to administer the agriculture sector. There is nothing wrong with beating your own drum, but Mr. Korvah tried to sell himself by attempting to damage the hard-earned reputation of Dr. Toe.

His attempt to undermine Dr. Toe backfired because he was never short-listed to occupy the minister position after Dr. Toe resigned in April 2009. He failed miserably in presenting himself as a crusader who wants to save the Ministry of Agriculture from the evils of Dr. Chris Toe, whom FPA referred to as one of the “high profile importees” brought in from America by Madam Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf to help run her government.

A thorough review of the Mr. Korvah’s letter makes it impossible to ignore the breed of contradictions lurking in each corner of the letter. Korvah started by saying that “one tree can not make a forest”. That Dr. Toe instituted, “the total usurpation of administrative functions” of the ministry, and ran the ministry “single-handedly, and also inverted the chain of command in the ministry”. But, Mr. Korvah in the same letter listed the officials who he also claimed worked closely with Dr. Toe, including the Assistant Minister of Administration, the Controller, Deputy Minister for Planning and Technical Service, and the various directors within the ministry. So how can Dr. Toe be running the ministry “single handedly” and inverting the chain of command while at the same time working with a slate of ministry officials he listed in his letter. It is apparent that one office may not have been functioning properly, and that office may have been the Deputy Minister of Administration (Mr. Peter Korvah).

Another important element that keep raising its head as one tries to follow the logic of Korvah’s letter is that he’s alone, got no ally throughout the entire ministry. For instance, he never mentioned or quoted any other official at the ministry complaining about what FPA calls the ‘irregularities” and corrupt practices of Dr. Toe. The “Smoking Gun” is all about Peter Korvah. The Korvah letter is a poorly written complaint, a web of contradictions, lacks substance and the objectivity and seriousness normally associated with whistle-blowing information. It is a purely self-centered, defamatory piece. Mr. Korvah is telling us that is a man who fell completely isolated within the ministry, and decided to embark on a Don Quixote look alike adventure to stop “irregularities”. You can tell how disgruntled Mr. Korvah was when stated, to paraphrase, that Dr. Toe refused to appoint him acting minister when Toe is away, and he Krovah, as deputy minister was always kept in the dark.

For those who are following the FPA negative reporting on Dr. Chris Toe based on the letter of Mr. Peter Korvah brave yourself for the truth and nothing else but the truth in the coming days, weeks or months as the lawsuit goes through the Liberian court system. Meanwhile, some important questions continue to linger on the minds of many readers, such as why did Mr. Korvah leak the information only to Frontpage Africa, which at the time was based in America? If this was a genuine effort to expose corruption, why not leak the information to other Liberian news outlet, especially those based in Liberia. Did Mr. Korvah know all too well that other news outlets would either question him about his allegations or investigate his allegations prior to publishing them in whole or parts? Or, did Mr. Korvah conclude that other news outlets could not be taken for the ride of manipulation by a government official seeking a higher position?

The people of Liberia would like to know more about Mr. Peter Korvah’s past and present activities in the employ of the Liberian government. He may very well turn out to be the opposite of what FrontPage Africa tries to sell us, that Korvah is a whistle-blower and reformer. Finally, a reader is forced to ponder the most important question of all, which is does FrontPage Africa have its own motive to seek the downfall and disgrace of Dr. Chris Toe.

Time will soon tell. You will hear from me again on this matter involving FrontPage Africa and Peter Korvah, on one hand and Dr. J. Chris Toe, on the other hand. As they always say, there are two sides to every story, or for the purpose of this lawsuit, there are three sides, Korvah, Frontpage Africa and that of Dr. Chris Toe.

Anna T.(My people)

Point Four

Bushrod Island

Montserrado County