According to an insider familiar with the matter, commissioners who were lawyers agreed that their names would appear on the petition as legal representatives of the Commission. The source claimed that during proceedings before Criminal Court “A,” Commissioner Fahnbulleh appeared alongside Brown, Cllr. Kabinet Ja’neh and Cllr. James Kumeh to represent the INCHR, while the Ministry of Justice was represented by Solicitor General Cllr. Augustine Fayiah and other government lawyers
MONROVIA – The suspension of Chairperson Cllr. Dempster Brown and the subsequent appointment of Commissioner Cllr. Mohammed E. Fahnbulleh to lead the Independent National Commission on Human Rights (INCHR) have exposed years of internal tensions, disagreements and power struggles among Commissioners at the country’s principal human rights institution.
By Selma Lomax, selma.lomax@frontpageafricaonline.com
President Joseph Nyuma Boakai suspended Cllr. Brown on June 26, 2026, indefinitely without pay after complaints were submitted to the Executive by fellow commissioners accusing him of misconduct. According to a statement issued by Presidential Press Secretary Atty. Kula Fofana, the allegations included claims that Brown forged the signatures of commissioners on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed before the Supreme Court of Liberia on November 12, 2024.
The Executive Mansion said the petition was allegedly filed without the knowledge or consent of some commissioners and was presented as an official decision of the Commission. The statement noted that if proven, the allegations could constitute forgery under Liberia’s Penal Law, Title 26, Section 15.70.
Beyond the forgery allegation, the Executive said Brown was accused of failing to convene board meetings for nearly two years and of withholding the compensation of fellow commissioners without legal authority as a disciplinary measure arising from disagreements over administrative decisions.
Following the suspension, President Boakai directed the Ministry of Justice to investigate the claims and instructed Brown to surrender government assets in his possession pending the outcome of the investigation.
However, information emerging from within the Commission has presented a different account of the events that led to the suspension, highlighting the deep divisions that have characterized relations among some commissioners.
Documents reviewed by FrontPage Africa, along with accounts from individuals familiar with the Commission’s operations, reportedly indicate that the Board of Commissioners unanimously agreed in November 2024 to pursue a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a Guinean national who was allegedly detained despite a court order directing his release.
According to an insider familiar with the matter, commissioners who were lawyers agreed that their names would appear on the petition as legal representatives of the Commission.
The source claimed that during proceedings before Criminal Court “A,” Commissioner Fahnbulleh appeared alongside Brown, Cllr. Kabinet Ja’neh and Cllr. James Kumeh to represent the INCHR, while the Ministry of Justice was represented by Solicitor General Cllr. Augustine Fayiah and other government lawyers.
The source further alleged that after the court delivered its ruling, Fahnbulleh stood before the court to receive the judgment on behalf of the Commission.
“It raises serious questions how a Commissioner who participated in the legal process, represented the Commission before the court and received the ruling could later become part of a complaint claiming his signature was forged. The circumstances require clarity,” the source said.
According to the insider, an internal email was later circulated congratulating Brown and Fahnbulleh for representing the Commission in the matter, with commissioners and staff members reportedly acknowledging the communication. The dispute over board meetings has also become another major point of disagreement between the suspended chairperson and his accusers.
While the Executive cited allegations that Brown failed to convene board meetings for an extended period, individuals familiar with the Commission’s internal records said documents exist showing that meetings were scheduled, agendas were circulated and minutes were prepared for sessions held between 2024 and 2026.
One source argued that the central issue was not the absence of meetings but disagreements over participation and attendance. “The records show that meetings were called and members were informed. The challenge was that some commissioners were not always present. Those records can be reviewed,” the source claimed.
The controversy surrounding Commissioners’ salaries has also added to the tensions. Brown has maintained that an administrative decision was taken after some Commissioners were allegedly absent from work without justification and that the withheld salaries were deposited into the Government of Liberia’s account at the Ministry of Finance.
Brown has further argued that the affected commissioners challenged the decision before the Supreme Court, where Justice in Chambers Yusif D. Kaba reportedly upheld the action, and the Full Bench later affirmed the decision on appeal.
Years of Rivalry Inside the Commission
Beyond the current legal dispute, the crisis has revealed what several employees and individuals familiar with the Commission describe as years of internal rivalry among Commissioners.
Sources within the institution say disagreements over authority, decision-making, administration and the direction of the Commission have repeatedly created divisions among members of the Board of Commissioners.
Employees who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal matters publicly described the Commission as an institution that has struggled with internal disagreements long before Brown’s suspension.
“The public is only now seeing what has been happening internally for years. There have been factions, mistrust and disagreements among commissioners, and those issues have affected the work of the institution,” one employee said.
Another staff member alleged that employees have often found themselves caught between competing interests within the leadership structure.
“Staff members have sometimes been placed in difficult situations because of disagreements among commissioners. Instead of focusing entirely on human rights work, too much attention has gone into managing internal conflicts,” the employee claimed.
A third employee expressed concern that continued disputes could further damage the Commission’s image.
“The institution needs stability and transparency. Every new confrontation affects staff morale and weakens public confidence in the Commission,” the employee said.
The internal disputes, according to current and former officials, did not begin with Brown’s suspension. They reportedly date back to the establishment of the Brown-led Board in August 2021, when disagreements among commissioners began emerging over administrative and institutional matters.
The controversy has also revived discussions about previous allegations involving Fahnbulleh. In 2022, he reportedly faced an internal investigation following allegations of sexual misconduct made by a female employee who accused him of making unwanted sexual advances. The outcome of that matter has not been publicly established.
Questions have also emerged regarding Fahnbulleh’s status at the Commission after he reportedly announced his resignation before the expiration of his tenure. Brown and other commissioners have maintained that they did not receive a formal written resignation communication.
Appointment Raises Institutional Questions
Fahnbulleh’s appointment to lead the Commission during Brown’s suspension has become another source of debate among governance observers.
Some analysts argue that appointing a commissioner who has been directly involved in the internal dispute creates a perception challenge, even if the appointment is legally permissible. They contend that leadership decisions at independent institutions must consider not only legality but also public confidence.
Others argue that the appointment provides continuity and allows the Commission to continue functioning while the investigation proceeds.
The INCHR Act outlines procedures relating to the replacement, dismissal and tenure of commissioners. Article XIV provides that where a commissioner dies, resigns, is dismissed, becomes incapacitated or is unable to perform official duties, the President may appoint a replacement in accordance with the law.
The Act further provides that a commissioner may be removed from office through impeachment and conviction by the Legislature based on proven gross misconduct in a court of law involving offenses such as treason, bribery, misapplication of entrusted property or other felonies.
Article XV outlines commissioners’ tenure, stating that the Chairperson serves six years while other commissioners serve five years. The law also restricts commissioners from holding other public offices, engaging in paid occupations or maintaining positions incompatible with their official duties.
Article XVI provides that employees of the Commission remain under the discipline, supervision and functional control of the institution. Meanwhile, concerns have grown following reports that employees returning to the Commission’s headquarters encountered several armed police officers stationed within the compound. The reason for the security presence was not immediately clear, but the development added to uncertainty surrounding the institution.
Efforts by this FrontPage Africa to reach Commissioner Fahnbulleh for his reaction to the allegations, concerns surrounding his appointment, and the debate over the internal disputes at the INCHR did not materialize up to press time. Calls and messages sent seeking his comments on the issues raised, including claims surrounding the 2024 habeas corpus matter, the Commission’s internal disagreements, and his role in the current leadership transition, were not responded to before publication.
