By Amos Harris
Deputy Information Minister Daniel Sando has strongly criticized Movement for Progressive Change (MPC) Political Leader Simeon Freeman, accusing the opposition figure of issuing incendiary political statements and continually seeking the presidency despite failing to build a substantial electoral base.
Sando made the comments during the Ministry of Information’s regular press briefing over the weekend in response to Freeman’s recent characterization of President Joseph Boakai as a “drug kingpin.”
Challenging Freeman’s political standing, the Deputy Minister questioned his electoral track record, arguing that his repeated runs for the nation’s highest office have yielded negligible support from Liberian voters. While Sando claimed Freeman has never secured more than one percent of the total vote in any presidential election, official election records offer a more nuanced picture.
Freeman contested the presidency in 2011, 2017, and 2023, though he did not run in 2005. Across these three election cycles, his combined share of the national vote stands at 1.61 percent.
The sharp exchange underscores the increasingly adversarial tone between government officials and opposition leaders as political figures step up their scrutiny of the Boakai administration. Freeman’s labeling of President Boakai as a “drug kingpin” represents a severe charge that requires credible evidence to gain political traction. Ultimately, neither hostile rhetoric nor modest electoral totals serve to validate or disprove such serious claims.
By weaponizing Freeman’s electoral performance, Sando aimed to undermine his credibility and question whether repeated candidacies qualify him as a leading political voice. The dispute highlights a lingering habit in Liberian politics, where officials and critics frequently trade personal and performance-based attacks rather than debating verified facts and policy alternatives.
As public discourse intensifies, Liberians continue to look to political figures on all sides to back up major allegations with concrete proof, discuss policy differences constructively, and present transparent records ahead of future elections.
Comments are closed.