MONROVIA – A major policy confrontation is unfolding within Liberia’s economic governance space as Representative Musa Hassan Bility mounts a sweeping challenge to the Central Bank of Liberia’s proposal to print billions in new banknotes. Framed as a technical monetary adjustment by the Central Bank of Liberia, the plan is now facing intense scrutiny over its scale, methodology, and potential economic consequences. At stake is not merely the volume of currency to be introduced, but broader questions of inflation control, fiscal discipline, and institutional accountability. As THE ANALYST reports, the Legislature is preparing to weigh the proposal, and Bility is raising the necessary red flags of the debate which is fast becoming a defining test of Liberia’s monetary credibility.
Nimba County District #7 Representative Musa Hassan Bility has mounted a comprehensive and technically grounded challenge to the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL)’s proposal to print L$79 billion in additional Liberian dollar banknotes, warning that the plan, if approved in its current form, could expose the economy to significant inflationary and governance risks.
In a detailed communication addressed to House Speaker Richard Nagbe Koon, Bility described the proposal as “economically reckless,” “methodologically weak,” and “dangerous in governance terms,” setting the stage for what is shaping into a high-stakes legislative and policy debate.
Scale of Proposal Raises Immediate Alarm
At the center of the controversy is the sheer magnitude of the CBL’s request: L$79 billion in new currency to be printed between 2026 and 2030, including an emergency request of L$14.7 billion.
Bility argues that the scale alone should trigger caution, noting that the proposed printing envelope approaches—and in some cases exceeds—the projected currency in circulation over the same period. According to CBL’s own projections, currency in circulation is expected to stand at L$45.94 billion in 2026 and rise to L$70.97 billion by 2030.
“This is not a routine monetary adjustment,” Bility warned. “It is an extraordinary expansion that lacks justification and discipline.”
For him, the issue is not only about volume but about the principle of monetary restraint in an economy already sensitive to inflationary pressures.
A Model Built on Assumptions
A central pillar of Bility’s critique is the methodological framework underpinning the proposal, which he contends relies heavily on projections rather than verifiable, real-time data.
The CBL’s model, he notes, is constructed on a series of assumptions, including a constant currency-to-GDP ratio, stable macroeconomic indicators, fixed rates of currency mutilation, and uniform reserve contingency allocations.
“When assumptions are layered upon assumptions,” he cautioned, “the result is not evidence—it is a model outcome designed to justify a predetermined figure.”
This critique goes beyond technical disagreement; it challenges the credibility of the analytical foundation upon which the proposal rests.
Bundling Inflates the Request
Bility further raised concerns about the structure of the proposal, particularly the bundling of multiple components into a single aggregate figure.
These components include transactional cash demand, replacement of worn-out notes, contingency reserves, allocations for gold purchases, and backdated replacement estimates.
According to Bility, this aggregation creates a risk of double counting and artificially inflates the overall request.
“A sound proposal,” he insisted, “would separate immediate operational needs from long-term policy ambitions.”
The implication is clear: without disaggregation, oversight becomes difficult, and accountability is diluted.
Questioning the “Emergency” Narrative
The CBL has justified part of its request on the basis of urgency, citing low currency reserves and operational pressures. However, Bility argues that the evidence presented does not substantiate such claims.
He is calling for detailed, disaggregated data, including denomination-specific shortages, regional demand patterns, ATM and commercial bank liquidity gaps, and verified records of note destruction.
“Urgency language cannot replace hard evidence,” he stated.
This demand reflects a broader concern within policymaking circles about the use of “emergency” framing to expedite major financial decisions without adequate scrutiny.
Mutilation Rate and Reserve Buffer Under Fire
Another significant issue raised is the application of a flat 7% annual mutilation rate for currency replacement.
Bility described this figure as unverified and potentially overstated, particularly in the absence of independent currency fitness surveys, denomination-specific wear analysis, and audited destruction records.
Similarly, he challenged the inclusion of a 3% annual reserve contingency buffer, describing it as an “automatic escalator” that increases printing volumes without clear empirical justification.
Together, these factors, he argued, contribute to an inflated and insufficiently grounded proposal.
Gold Purchases: A High-Risk Strategy
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the proposal is the inclusion of currency printing to support gold purchases and reserve accumulation.
Bility warned that this approach could have unintended macroeconomic consequences, including inflationary pressure, exchange rate volatility, and erosion of monetary discipline.
“Printing domestic currency to acquire reserve assets is not routine cash management,” he cautioned. “It is a high-risk policy that requires a separate, transparent framework.”
This concern introduces a critical dimension to the debate: the intersection of monetary policy and asset accumulation strategy.
Procurement Transparency Concerns
The proposal’s provision for emergency sole-source procurement of currency printing services has also drawn sharp criticism.
Bility described this as a “major red flag,” emphasizing that currency printing is among the most sensitive functions in public finance and must adhere to the highest standards of transparency and accountability.
“Any attempt to weaken procurement discipline under the guise of urgency should be treated with extreme caution,” he warned.
In a governance environment where procurement integrity remains a recurring issue, this aspect of the proposal is likely to attract significant legislative attention.
High Costs, Limited Accountability
The financial implications of the printing plan are substantial, with costs expected to run into tens of millions of U.S. dollars, excluding logistics such as freight and insurance.
Yet, according to Bility, the accountability mechanisms proposed are insufficient.
He is calling for comprehensive safeguards, including full chain-of-custody tracking of printed notes, independent audits, quarterly reporting to the Legislature, and public disclosure of quantities printed, distributed, and destroyed.
“The proposal asks for trust,” he observed, “before establishing control.”
A Printing-First Approach Questioned
Beyond the technical and financial critiques, Bility challenged what he described as a “printing-first” approach to what may fundamentally be a cash management issue.
He argued that alternative measures should be prioritized, including improving note durability, optimizing denomination structures, strengthening ATM and rural cash distribution networks, implementing anti-hoarding strategies, and expanding digital and mobile payment systems.
“Printing should be the last resort—not the first response,” he asserted.
Recommendations to the Legislature
In place of the current proposal, Bility has urged lawmakers to demand a comprehensive reformulated framework, including independent technical reviews of actual cash demand, detailed denomination audits, externally validated mutilation studies, separate legal frameworks for gold purchases, phased approvals tied to performance benchmarks, and enhanced transparency in procurement and reporting.
These recommendations reflect a shift from reactive policymaking to a more structured, evidence-based approach.
A Defining Test of Monetary Governance
In his concluding remarks, Bility framed the issue as a critical test of Liberia’s economic governance architecture.
“This is not a routine administrative matter,” he stated. “It is a test of whether the national currency will be managed by discipline or by convenience.”
He further warned that public confidence could begin to erode even before any new currency is introduced if citizens perceive an uncontrolled expansion of the money supply.
As the Legislature prepares to deliberate, the stakes extend beyond the immediate proposal. What is being tested is not only a policy decision, but the credibility of the institutions responsible for managing Liberia’s monetary future.