By: Emmanuel Koffa
A renewed public debate over governance, accountability, and development has emerged in Grand Kru County following allegations of corruption leveled against County Superintendent Antoinette Wowlee Nimely by a local citizen, claims the superintendent has strongly denied.
Thomas Blamo, a son of Grand Kru County from Forpoh Parluken of Electoral District Two, has accused Superintendent Nimely of poor leadership and alleged misuse of development resources, adding his voice to long-standing public concerns surrounding the county’s administration.
Blamo’s assertions echo sentiments expressed during a citizens’ protest held in March 2024, when demonstrators accused senior county officials—including Development Superintendent Joe Sekpeh and Superintendent Nimely—of corruption and ineffective leadership.
At the time, protesters called for their removal, arguing that their continued service was undermining development efforts in the county.
According to him, despite public resistance, both officials were approved through political backing, which he claims has shielded them from accountability.
He argued that Grand Kru continues to lag behind other counties in basic development indicators, a situation he attributes to weak governance and alleged corruption.
Central to Blamo’s claims is an allegation that a reported US$50,000 intended for county development initiatives was misused.
He contended that critical needs—particularly access to safe drinking water and youth infrastructure—remain unaddressed, raising questions about how development resources are being utilized.
Blamo also raised concerns over funds reportedly earmarked for persons with disabilities, calling for greater transparency and public disclosure on how such resources are accessed and managed.
He challenged Superintendent Nimely to account for her stewardship since assuming office, noting that the role of a county superintendent includes overseeing development projects, managing public resources, coordinating with central government agencies, and implementing the County Development Agenda to improve citizens’ livelihoods.
Blamo described himself as a concerned citizen advocating for integrity, urging the county leadership to prioritize transparency and measurable development outcomes.
However, Superintendent Nimely has rejected the allegations, describing them as baseless and rooted in a misunderstanding of how county development funds operate.
Responding to the claims, the superintendent stated that she has no personal access to such funds and questioned the origin of the alleged US$50,000.
“I read it, but I don’t know where the US$50,000 came from,” she said. “I don’t even personally have access to such money, so I don’t know how I would take it.”
Addressing concerns regarding funds for persons with disabilities, Superintendent Nimely explained that access to such resources follows established procedures and is not controlled solely by her office.
“The disabled people know the documents they are supposed to provide, and you know exactly what to do to access the money. Even I cannot personally access that money,” she clarified.
She further explained that Grand Kru County operates strictly under the County Development Fund (CDF), unlike other counties that benefit from a Social Development Fund (SDF).
“Grand Kru County is not like other counties that have SDF. We only have CDF—US$186,000. What can that do? Nothing,” she stated.
According to him, all CDF expenditures follow a competitive bidding and contracting process, with funds disbursed directly to contractors based on approved contracts rather than to individuals.
“We have to put up a bid for contractors to win before any money is disbursed, and that disbursement is based strictly on the contract. No one has access to that money,” she emphasized.
Superintendent Nimely dismissed the accusations as ill-informed, asserting that anyone familiar with the CDF process would question how such funds could be allegedly misappropriated.
Despite her denial, Blamo and other critics maintain that transparency remains insufficient, particularly given the county’s persistent development challenges.
They continue to call for clearer public reporting on county finances and tangible development outcomes.
Meanwhile, as of this report, no independent investigation has been announced, leaving the matter at the level of competing claims between the accuser and the county administration—an exchange that has once again brought governance and public trust in Grand Kru County into sharp public focus.