The Problem With Ellen's Armed Robbery Ultimatum

PRESIDENT SIRLEAF, UNLIKE her immediate predecessors, Charles Taylor and Samuel, does not have the headache of sporadic political subversions. She is not battling armed aggressors like those who intermittently confronted the last two political regimes with their rebellious warfare. If there are any groups, armed and vicious, undermining the peace and tranquility of Liberians under Sirleaf, they are armed robbers. The methods of attack and onslaught of these armed anti-peace elements are as dastardly and nefarious as their politically rebellious counterparts. They leave behind trails of tears, blood and colossal loose of lives and properties. The frequency and viciousness of attacks by these villains has now reached epidemic and emergency proportions such that Liberians, particularly Monrovians, are edgy, restless and sleepless. No night comes to pass without the attackers producing scores of victims. Though President Sirleaf in a statement Paynesville is particularly affected, armed robbery attacks are more pervasive in slum communities where top government official don't reside and therefore state security negligible.

IN RESPONSE TO the evolving national calamity, this is what President Sirleaf said in a nationwide broadcast: “ The latest report confirms that once again armed robbers are on the increase, particularly in the Paynesville area. There is nothing that pains me more than to see innocent citizens who are trying to rebuild their lives fall victims to these criminals. I have asked UNMIL to be more vigilant and proactive in patrols and I have asked the Minister of Justice to do more in terms of logistical support for the Police and a more effective system of justice. If there is no improvement in the situation within a month or two, I will take more drastic measures, even if unpopular, to ensure better protection of our innocent population. ”

HAVING ACKNOWLEDGED THE increasing waves of the robbers' banditry and cruelty, the President did not declare immediate full-scale counter offensives. She did not declare armed robbers the nation's Number #1 Enemy deserving nothing but an immediate decisive and drastic action. She did not order GSA to supply the Liberian National Police more vehicles, more fuel and gasoline, and more communication gadgets necessary to sustained and effective patrols. She did not order a special anti-armed robbery unit to get into action and visit preemptive strikes on the enemies. No. The president did not reprimand or sack, as she sometimes does in cases the produce “unfavorable” results, judicial personnel that poorly handle armed robbery cases in ways that produce recidivists and let them go with impunity. All the President says is to give these armed enemies of the state four to eight weeks to ground arms or face “drastic measures.”

BUT DOESN'T THE President know that such a self-declared truce or ultimatum or red letter day is usually understood by the enemy forces as an empirical sign of impotence and defeat that gives them the impetus to maximally inflict the gravest damage and horror before the last hour? Doesn't the President also know that 30 days or 60 days is very adequate for armed robbers to step up their attacks and send scores of citizens to their early graves and loot the hugest number of properties?

IF THERE IS any leadership responsibility so solemn, so urgent and imperative for the President, it is the protection of the lives and properties of Liberians and those within our borders. Besides the fact that the centerpiece of the Social Contract is to protect citizens' lives and properties, President Sirleaf, at the administration of the oath of office, swore and vowed before God and man that the protection of Liberians would be her utmost task and responsibility. Giving armed robbers one or two months before they face drastic action is a far cry from the spirit and intent of the President's Oath of Office. Two years of leadership is too soon for the President to forget this fundamental vow and to begin to bargain with armed robbers, who are serious enemies of the people, on when and how the lives and properties of population should and would be protected and defended. Would the President have given a 30- to 60-day ultimatum to armed men whose targets and victims were primarily officials of government, including herself and family?

INDEED, THE PRESIDENT'S ultimatum is misguided; it is less pro-people. If she got some “drastic actions” in her mind or in her official policy, she must release them--and lease them now. She needs not wait an inch because thirty or 60 days might just be too late for some Liberians, the ordinary majority who cannot afford the luxury of private or public security service. In fact, since the ultimatum, the enemies have stepped up their villainous attacks in unprecedented pace and fashion; and many are crying and mourning. Should there be an ultimatum? No. We want the President's “drastic action” “even if unpopular, to ensure better protection of our innocent population.”