When former LAA boss, Ellen Cockrum took to the airwaves to speak about her connection, interaction and knowledge of alleged excesses of Liberia’s Solicitor General, Cyrenius Cephus, little she or many other Liberians knew what was to follow. Truly, that disclosure, though yet to be proven, remains stuck and accepted by most Liberians, mainly admit few disconcerting happenings in parts of the country. Added to that is the fact Liberia’s most morality institution, Liberia Council of Churches, rose to the occasion against the Solicitor General. While Cockrum is now quite, the dust is specifically billowing between the LCC and SG Cephus, with the two of them throwing diatribes at each other. The recent of the verbal onslaughts comes from SG Cephus who says the LCC boss is not worthy of the position he occupies and the title he bears, describing him as ‘agent provocateur.’ The New Republic takes a look at the bits and pieces of the unending rancor.
The rancor existing between the Liberia Council of Churches (LCC) on the one hand and Solicitor General Cyrenius Cephus on the other hand seems to be distant away from over evidenced by renewed attacks coming from the SG, classifying the LCC’s President, Bishop Kortu Brown, as agent provocateur.
The LCC under the leadership of Bishop Kortu Brown has been very vocal against SG Cephus since uncorroborated reports emerged from former Ellen Cockrum, former head of the Liberia Airport Authority, that he (Cephus) is into dubious activities including ritualistic killing.
As the issue became more and more topical, the LCC issued a damaging statement against the SG, and called for his dismissal on the basis that he lacks the wherewithal, moral credentials to serve as Solicitor General.
SG Cephus accordingly hit back at the LCC President for trying to venture in an unchartered waters, describing him as masquerade using his office to sow seeds of discord and as someone who has personal hatred for the Weah-led government.
The LCC, the body which Bishop Brown heads through his Vice President took exception to SG Cephus’ characterization of Bishop Brown in an accompanying statement to which Cephus has also responded.
In a letter seen by this paper Tuesday, SG Cephus tried to draw a dichotomy between what he said at the time vis-à-vis what the LCC is claiming.
“it is quite interesting and I am not surprised that my comments against Bishop Brown have been taken out of context and are construed to be an attack on the LCC and its solemn role in the society, but I disagree with seems to be a rather shameful and limited understanding on the part of the LCC Vice President,” Cephus writes.
He said the word ‘of’, a preposition which he used to describe Bishop Brown as a man with limited vision and courage – a man who falsely uses the pulpit and the edifice of the LCC to malign the character of those who do not share his parochial views.
Stating that his statement at the time did not refer to the LCC as a body, the SG contended that he has no regrets, whatsoever, for his comments against Bishop Brown.
“As part of my constitutional right under Article 15(b) of the 1986 Constitution, I have the right to hold the view that Bishop Brown as an Agent Provocateur and an uncompromising egoist who, in order to mask his impotencies and cowardice will manufacture the most asinine slander on those who have seen through the hypocrisies and viciousness,” he writes.
“I hold this view to be palpable, because of his wanton and unprovoked attacks on my person, character and image and that of my darling wife and family.”
He said his statement was not against the LCC as an institution but Bishop Brown whom he said is operating outside of his domain as a prelate.