Indeed, as one who is opposed to Dual Citizenship, I followed with keen interest, the spirited debate, Outcries and Outrages, critical of the Honorable Senator, H. Dan Morias of Maryland County, for his reported opposition to Dual Citizenship (Dual Citizenship Bill Faces Opposition, NEW DAWN, May 13, 2013) and, particularly, for being the alleged “former NPFL, Rebel Commander”.
Almost all of these “outcries & outrages” come, reasonably, from “Liberians in the Diaspora”, our fellow compatriots, based in the US and Europe, who passed a resolution recently that call for adoption of dual citizenship in our country.
My problem with these outcries and outrages is that rather than confine their arguments/criticisms to the critical issue at hand – dual citizenship – by showing through factual, reasonable and relevant evidence, that the Honorable Senator’s opposition lacks validity or without validated support, the critics chose the person of Mr. Dan Morias, elected to The Honorable, Liberian Senate.
This approach is a classic example of “take on messenger rather than the message or the trial lawyer who, faced with a damaging, unimpeachable testimony by a witness, resorts to personality attack against the person of the witness.
Mr. Dan Morias’ alleged, rebel activities as a commander, at the senior level, in the insurgent NPFL are a valid argument that should and could have been made as a campaign issues (rebellion, patriotism, qualification) at the time when the he (Mr. Dan Morias) stood as a candidate for the Senate. The prevailing issue, now at bar, some seven years after his election to the senate, is dual citizenship.
Significantly, though, the fundamental, legal argument to be made, and that must be made, is that those senators, representatives, high-profile executives, ministers, sub-ministers and heads of agencies of the executive branch of our government and other socio-economic, politically-connected titans now running around in country and foreign lands, posing as champions of the democratic process, but who have been allegedly involved in and committed acts of rebellion/insurrection against the Republic of Liberia, with plunder, destruction, human suffering and death and, therefore, liable for Treason, Article 76(a) of our Constitution says:
1. (4) “attempting by overt act (NPFL/INPFL insurrection) to overthrow the government, rebellion against the Republic , insurrection and . . .“
2. (5) “. . . abrogating or attempting to abrogate, subverting or attempting or conspiring to subvert the Constitution by use of force or by any other means which attempts to undermine this Constitution (of 1980)”.
Making the argument for reform and change requires commitment, personal sacrifice and investment in the future of our country and generations yet unborn; it requires that the informed “book people” citizens of Maryland, indeed, of all other counties, to confront the “Dan Moriases” and others, and to teach the uninformed voters – our mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, sisters and brothers who form the overwhelming majority of the nation’s body politic – the required facts for political decision-making.
Elsewhere, I observed that effective/efficient, relevant change will come only with active involvement of the informed, educated, trained, experienced, courageous and dedicated citizens.
“Importantly”, I held that “those Diaspora-based Liberians with interest for reform, transformation and improvement of our nation’s socio-economic and political order . . .; those living in foreign countries who observed and experienced, comparatively, the dynamics of world, democratic, political/economic systems and leadership; and those who criticize, reasonably and rightly, the policies of our country but pontificate “pie-in-the-sky” policy solutions from the relative comfort of the developed countries, It is important to note that no matter the level of one’s academic training and knowledge of the issues, one’s patriotism, passionate commitment/dedication to socio-economic and political transformation in Liberia, one must be on the ground in Liberia because one cannot effect democratic change in Liberia by remote pontifications. One must be physically present on the ground in Liberia to observe and experience the dynamics of the socio-economic and political, developmental process – who does what, to whom, why, how, where, when and the context of these dynamics”.