|
Several government ministries and agencies will on Friday appear before the
joint committees of the Transitional Legislative Assembly (NTLA) to answer
questions relative to the controversial concession agreement signed between the
National Transitional Government of Liberia (NTGL) and Firestone.
The government ministries and agencies according to the Chairman of the NTLA
Committee on Concession & Investment Thomas Nimely is to quiz the senior
government officials how and why the agreement was signed and why they think it
must be ratified by the NTLA.
Those to appear before the NTLA joint committees tomorrow are Finance Minister
Lusiene Kamara, Justice Minister Kabinah Janneh, The National Investment
Commission, Chairman Roosevelt Quiah, and Labour Minister Lavala Supuwood.
Mr. Nimely who is also Representative of the National Patriotic Party (NPP)
yesterday told journalists that the two committees will jointly examine the
agreement and subsequently make
recommendations to the Plenary which is the highest decision making body of that
august body for ratification of said agreement.
Representatives from the Firestone Rubber Plantation Company as well as legal
experts will also be in attendance, Nimely stressed.
The public hearing, he said, was necessary and timely because it is intended to
afford the ordinary Liberians the opportunity to have their inputs into the
exercise.
He used the occasion to admonished his fellow citizens especially stakeholders
in the rubber industry to utilize the Friday opportunity by attending the
discussions.
Speaking further, he stressed that the public hearing is also intended to seek
public view because majority of the people are major stakeholders and custodians
of the resources.
It can be recalled in this month the NTGL and the Management of Firestone Rubber
Plantation signed a renew concession contract for additional thirty-two (32)
years.
Since the signing of the agreement, the Bryant- led NTGL has being condemned in
many quarters for what they described as a hasty decision.
They argued that the NTGL does not have the legal rights to sign a document that
is beyond its statutory obligations and lifespan.
|
|