\n\n\n\n
MONROVIA \u2013 In statements that are largely self-contradicting and underpinned by falsehood, FDA\u2019s Deputy Managing Director for Operations, Gertrude Nyaley misinformed the public about community rights, eligibility for contracts, and legality procedures for confiscated and abandoned logs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nyaley made the false claims last Thursday when she appeared<\/a> on Forest Hour<\/em>, a radio program of Liberia Forest Media Watch, hosted on Okay FM.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The DayLight has fact-checked four major ones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n CLAIM 1: \u201cIf there are no shareholders and it is a new company and none of the significant individuals that existed in the previous company, [are] named in that [new] company\u2019s legal document, they cannot be considered as the same company. That\u2019s the trouble we had. So, they registered a completely new company but we, FDA, are still under obligation to advise the community.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf you say this Company A, you must prove that these are the same significant individuals. But if they are not the same significant individuals, they are totally different individuals, how can you say they are the same company? You can\u2019t say it!\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n FACT-CHECK: This claim is false. A Singaporean family, the Guptas, own both Sing Africa and Indo Africa, according to the companies\u2019 articles of incorporation. The Guptas even have a third company: Starwood<\/a>, which has a contract with Matro Kpogblen Community Forest in Grand Bassa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Shivali Gupta, Shivani Gupta and Prachi Gupta have equal shares in Sing Africa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mukesh Gupta also has 51 percent and Anju Mukesh Kumar has the other 41 percent of the shares in Indo Africa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mukesh Gupta has 70 percent of the shares in Starwood and Mrs. Anju Mukesh Kumar has the remaining 30 percent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sing Africa and Indo Africa share Kishan Rao Pamapalker as their registered agent, a person who represents a company\u2019s interest in business deals and lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, the two companies had the same officials, with Kumah Gupta as their chief executive officer and Moses Mononporlor, as community forest manager.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The DayLight published<\/a> these facts in an October 2021 investigation, which New Dawn newspaper republished. The FDA took no corrective measures against the family until each of the companies abandoned its contract. In the end, communities are struggling to get their benefits from a bank ordered<\/a> by the Commercial Court to possess their assets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n CLAIM 2: \u201cOur work is to ensure that they work consistent with the law. We don\u2019t choose [a] company for [a] community. Communities themselves write FDA introducing who they want to work with after they have gone through their rigorous processes. So, they choose the company to work with. And all FDA can say to you is look, \u2018We think that these people may not have the technical capacity because of what they have done in previous communities. We need you to watch.\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe law says even when they sent their request to sign and we ignored their request, after three months, they have the right to even sign.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This is also misleading. Nyaley misreferenced the procedures for an automatic renewal of a community forest management agreement with a commercial use contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Communities sign a community forest management agreement with the FDA for 15 years. Now, when that agreement is about to expire, Section 7.8 of the Community Rights Regulation gives villagers the right to automatic renewal if the FDA does not respond to a community\u2019s request in not less than 60 days. That provision has nothing to do with a commercial use contract\u2014also known as a third-party agreement\u2014between a community and a company or an individual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, community forestry is no escapism from normal forestry practices. It only recognizes communities\u2019 rights to forestland ownership and co-management of forest resources. It does not usurp the FDA\u2019s powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Section 4 (g) and (f) of the FDA Act<\/a> of 1976 is clear: \u201cTo prescribe the form of all licenses, permits, agreements and other instruments dealing with the use of forest resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cTo control the issuance of such instruments and determine the conditions under which they may be granted, exercised, produced, revoked or returned.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n CLAIM 3: \u201cWe\u2019ll move in first to one area for seizure, go to the magisterial court, we get the seizure, get to the site, [and] place the notice. After the period elapse[s], we move to the circuit court and apply the law.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n FACT-CHECK: This statement is misleading. A magisterial court plays no role in the legal processes regarding confiscated or abandoned logs. The word \u201ccourt\u201d is used 17 times in the Regulation on Confiscated Logs, Timber, and Timber Products<\/a>, and 10 times in the Regulation on Abandoned Logs, Timber, and Timber Products<\/a>. In all instances, the regulations are clear that a petition to confiscate or seize wood must be done in the circuit court. There is no mention of the phrase \u201cmagisterial court\u201d in both regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/stage.thedaylight.org\/wp68\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Screen-Shot-2024-07-06-at-12.36.05-PM-1024x505.png\")