A review of government financial records raises questions about both the opposition’s claims and the administration’s explanations, while the government’s own commitment to revisit salary harmonization raises another question: Why has a policy the Unity Party criticized remained in place for so long?
MONROVIA, LIBERIA — A heated dispute between Civil Service Agency (CSA) Director-General Dr. Josiah F. Joekai Jr. and former Assistant Minister of Finance for Development Planning Benedict Kolubah has reopened a critical national debate over Liberia’s public payroll, government spending, salary harmonization, and accountability for taxpayers’ money.
At the centre of the controversy is an apparent discrepancy of US$63.3 million that Kolubah says cannot be reconciled with the government’s claims of payroll savings and the removal of questionable names from the civil-service payroll.
Kolubah, a staunch supporter of the opposition Coalition for Democratic Change (CDC), argues that the Boakai administration has reported savings from payroll cleaning while government compensation figures have moved in a direction that demands explanation.
Joekai, however, has defended the administration’s payroll reforms and maintained that differences between Civil Service Agency figures and Ministry of Finance figures can arise because the institutions do not necessarily cover the same employees, agencies, or expenditure categories.
Both arguments raise legitimate questions. But determining who is right requires more than political exchanges: it requires a careful examination of official financial records, payroll data, and the legal framework governing public-sector salaries.
An examination of available reporting and published government audit findings reveals that Kolubah has identified a genuine issue requiring reconciliation, but some of his broader claims about the historical wage bill are not supported by the financial figures reviewed by independent fact-checkers. Joekai, meanwhile, has documented payroll-cleaning efforts, but the available evidence does not, by itself, resolve every question about the reported US$63.3 million discrepancy.
THE US$63.3 MILLION QUESTION: WHERE IS THE MONEY?
The dispute intensified in August 2025 when Kolubah challenged the CSA’s account of payroll reductions and government compensation expenditure.
He argued that the administration could not simultaneously claim to have removed questionable payroll entries and achieved substantial savings while the broader government wage bill continued to attract scrutiny.
Kolubah cited the CSA’s 2024 report, Ministry of Finance financial statements, and fiscal reports to argue that the figures did not adequately explain the relationship between reported savings and actual expenditure.
His argument was straightforward: if payroll cleaning removed workers who were not legitimately entitled to salaries, the government should be able to demonstrate how those removals affected compensation spending.
In his account, the difference amounted to US$63.3 million that needed to be explained.
However, the existence of a difference between figures in separate financial reports does not automatically mean US$63.3 million was stolen, misappropriated, or missing from the government’s accounts.
To establish what the difference represents, the government must identify the figures being compared, their accounting periods, and the institutions and expenditure categories included in each calculation.
The administration should also distinguish between projected payroll savings, reductions in monthly salary obligations, actual annual expenditure, and amounts appropriated in the national budget.
Without that reconciliation, the public cannot conclusively determine whether the discrepancy reflects different accounting classifications, changes in personnel compensation, new recruitment, or another factor.
Kolubah’s challenge therefore raises an important accountability question, but the US$63.3 million figure should not be described as proven missing money without a documented reconciliation or audit finding establishing that conclusion.
WHAT DO THE OFFICIAL WAGE-BILL FIGURES SHOW?
A separate examination of Kolubah’s broader claims about the national wage bill provides important context.
In September and October 2025, two Liberian fact-checking reports examined his assertion that the wage bill had increased only slightly during the CDC administration, from approximately US$290 million in 2018 to US$296 million in 2023, before rising sharply under the Unity Party government.
The fact-checkers reviewed government consolidated financial statements and found that the wage bill was approximately US$292.4 million in 2018 and US$301 million in 2023.
Their findings contradict Kolubah’s claim that the wage bill rose only to US$296 million by the end of the CDC administration.
The figures reported in the fact-checks are as follows:
Year or fiscal period| Reported wage-bill figure| Significance
2018| US$292.4 million| Wage bill inherited by the CDC administration
2018/2019| US$305.77 million| Figure reported for the CDC’s first budget period
2019/2020| US$292.54 million| Subsequent reported wage-bill figure
2020/2021| Approximately US$295 million| Wage-bill figure cited in the review
2022| Approximately US$298 million| Reported wage-bill figure
2023| US$301 million| Reported wage bill in the final year of the CDC administration
2024| US$274.7 million| Reported expenditure figure for the first year of the Boakai administration
2025| US$315.5 million| Budgeted or projected wage-bill figure, not necessarily actual expenditure
Source: Published fact-checks reviewing government consolidated financial statements and national budget documents. The figures must be interpreted according to their respective fiscal periods and accounting definitions.
These figures reveal two important points.
First, the CDC’s wage bill did not remain as nearly unchanged as Kolubah suggested. It rose from approximately US$292.4 million in 2018 to US$301 million in 2023.
Second, the Boakai administration’s reported 2024 expenditure of US$274.7 million was below the 2023 figure, but its 2025 budget projected US$315.5 million for wages and salaries.
The difference between the 2023 figure and the 2025 projection is approximately US$14.5 million, or 4.8 percent.
That comparison warrants scrutiny, but it must be treated carefully: a budget projection is not proof that the same amount was actually spent.
The available fact-checks therefore do not support Kolubah’s claim that the wage bill under the CDC increased only slightly to US$296 million. They do, however, establish that the Boakai administration’s 2025 compensation budget was projected above the reported 2023 figure.
WHAT IS JOEKAI SAYING ABOUT PAYROLL CLEANING?
When Joekai assumed leadership of the Civil Service Agency in March 2024, he reported inheriting a workforce of 67,746 employees across 103 government spending entities.
He put the average monthly wage bill at approximately US$23.54 million.
Joekai said the payroll needed comprehensive examination to identify ghost workers, prevent double payments, and improve the integrity of public employment records.
His proposed reforms included a forensic payroll audit, employee verification, and improvements to personnel management.
The payroll-cleaning exercise was not merely a political announcement.
In its January 2025 report on Liberia’s economic programme, the International Monetary Fund reported that the CSA had removed 3,775 civil servants from the payroll since March 2024. These included 1,539 employees identified during verification associated with the 2022 General Auditing Commission payroll audit.
The IMF also reported that verification of another 6,387 government employees was progressing and that salary payments to unverified employees had been suspended pending confirmation of their employment status.
This evidence supports the conclusion that the Boakai administration undertook a substantial payroll-verification exercise.
However, removing names from a payroll does not automatically establish how much money was saved over an entire fiscal year.
To calculate actual savings, the government would need to disclose the salaries and allowances associated with the removed employees, the dates on which payments stopped, and any replacement recruitment or subsequent adjustments.
It would also need to show whether the savings were offset by salary increases, new employees, changes in allowances, or compensation paid through other government entities.
Joekai has evidence of payroll-cleaning activity. The outstanding question is whether the financial results of that activity can be reconciled transparently with the government’s total compensation expenditure.
THE US$63.3 MILLION DISPUTE: WHAT WOULD SETTLE IT?
The CSA and the Ministry of Finance should publish a joint reconciliation addressing five areas.
1. The starting payroll: How many employees were being paid at the beginning of the relevant period, and what was the verified monthly compensation obligation?
2. Employees removed: How many workers were removed, how much did they earn, and what savings were actually realized?
3. New recruitment: How many employees were added during the same period, and what additional salary costs did their appointments create?
4. Compensation adjustments: How much was spent on salary increases, allowances, promotions, arrears, and other changes to employee compensation?
5. The final expenditure: What was actually paid during the fiscal year, and how does that amount compare with the budget and the CSA’s reported savings?
These figures should be independently reconciled with the Ministry of Finance’s consolidated financial statements and relevant audit findings.
If Kolubah’s calculation is correct, the underlying records should establish where the difference arises. If Joekai’s explanation is correct, the same records should demonstrate why the figures differ and how the savings were calculated.
Until the two sides provide comparable figures, neither political assertions nor general statements about payroll cleaning are sufficient to settle the dispute.
WHY HAS BOAKAI NOT FULLY REVERSED SALARY HARMONIZATION?
The payroll controversy leads to another issue with significant consequences for civil servants: the salary harmonization policy introduced under former President George Weah’s CDC administration.
The Unity Party criticized aspects of harmonization while in opposition, and the policy remained a source of dissatisfaction among public employees.
Yet after taking office in January 2024, the Boakai administration did not immediately abolish the framework.
Why?
The answer involves public finances, the legal status of the policy, and the difficulty of reversing a nationwide compensation system.
1. The policy is embedded in a legal framework
Harmonization was introduced alongside the National Remuneration Standardization Act of 2019.
The reform sought to narrow disparities in government pay, standardize salaries across institutions, and make compensation spending more sustainable.
An Auditor General’s compliance audit covering January 2018 through December 2021 found that the harmonized pay grades had not been applied consistently.
The audit reported that 3,970 employees across 80 ministries and agencies were earning above their expected harmonized pay grades, with a combined monthly difference of approximately US$581,439.
It also found that 32,759 employees across 90 government entities were earning below their expected pay grades, with a combined monthly difference of approximately US$5.71 million.
Additionally, 25,162 employees across 97 ministries and agencies did not have established pay grades in the records examined.
These findings show that implementation was uneven and that the compensation system needed further examination.
They also demonstrate why simply restoring every pre-harmonization salary would not necessarily produce a fair or consistent system.
The government must determine which employees were underpaid, which were overpaid relative to established grades, and what compensation structure should apply going forward.
2. Reversing the policy has financial consequences
The Boakai administration has to consider how much a nationwide salary restoration would cost.
If salaries reduced under harmonization were restored without offsetting revenue or expenditure measures, the government could face a higher recurrent wage bill.
That could reduce the fiscal space available for roads, schools, hospitals, medicines, public infrastructure, and other priorities.
The administration must therefore explain whether it intends to restore all affected salaries, adjust particular pay grades, or introduce a revised compensation structure.
It must also show how any increase would be financed and whether the resulting wage bill would remain sustainable.
These are legitimate fiscal concerns, but they do not eliminate the government’s responsibility to address inequities in public-sector compensation.
3. The administration has already moved toward partial changes
It would be inaccurate to say that the Boakai administration has done nothing to reverse harmonization.
In February 2026, reporting by The Liberian Investigator said Finance Minister Augustine Kpehe Ngafuan had approved targeted salary increases for employees of the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission, the General Auditing Commission, and the Judiciary, including judges and Supreme Court justices.
The changes prompted a dispute over whether the executive could reverse parts of the remuneration framework without explicit legislative action. Bomi County Senator Edwin Snowe argued that the 2019 law remained in force and that formal legislative action was required.
This means the issue is not simply whether the government wants to change harmonization. It is also whether the changes are being implemented through the appropriate legal and budgetary procedures.
Targeted salary adjustments are not the same as abolishing or comprehensively replacing the policy.
4. The government has now publicly committed to revisiting the policy
In a report published on September 16, 2026, the Liberia Broadcasting System reported that the government had committed to reversing the controversial harmonization policy.
Deputy Information Minister Daniel Sando said President Boakai had reiterated his determination to revisit the policy because of its effects on the disposable incomes of civil servants and the households they support.
This is an important development.
It means the government’s publicly stated position has moved beyond merely defending the existing framework: it has acknowledged the need to revisit it.
However, a commitment to reverse a policy is not the same as a completed repeal or comprehensive restoration of salaries.
As of the latest reporting examined for this article, the government had publicly committed to revisiting the policy, but the available evidence does not establish that the entire harmonization framework has been formally repealed or that all affected salaries have been restored.
The government should publish a timetable, explain the proposed changes, identify the affected employees, and disclose the estimated cost.
IS BOAKAI BREAKING HIS PROMISE TO CIVIL SERVANTS?
The government’s failure to complete a comprehensive reversal promptly raises a legitimate accountability question, particularly given the Unity Party’s previous criticism of harmonization.
But the strongest assessment should distinguish between a broken promise, a delayed implementation, and a policy change that requires legal and fiscal preparation.
The administration has publicly committed to revisiting harmonization and has reportedly made targeted salary adjustments. Those steps do not, by themselves, demonstrate that its broader commitment has been fulfilled.
Nor does the continued existence of the framework prove that the government has abandoned its stated objective.
The decisive evidence would be a formal policy proposal, legislative action where required, a revised salary structure, and a funded implementation plan.
Civil servants should not have to rely indefinitely on political statements about a policy that directly affects their livelihoods.
WHAT SHOULD LIBERIANS EXPECT FROM JOEKAI AND KOLUBAH?
The debate should now move beyond political rivalry.
Kolubah should publish the full calculations behind his US$63.3 million claim, identifying the financial statements, expenditure categories, and periods used.
Joekai and the Ministry of Finance should publish a joint reconciliation showing the number of employees removed, the savings realized, subsequent recruitment, salary adjustments, and total compensation expenditure.
The General Auditing Commission should be asked to clarify whether existing audit findings resolve any part of the dispute and whether further examination is necessary.
Separately, the Boakai administration should provide a public timetable for reviewing harmonization and explain how any revised salary structure will be funded and legally implemented.
These measures would allow Liberians to assess the evidence rather than choose between competing political narratives.
CONCLUSION: THE RECORDS, NOT THE RHETORIC, MUST DECIDE
The evidence reviewed points to a more complicated picture than either side’s political arguments suggest.
Kolubah is justified in demanding an explanation of the relationship between payroll-cleaning savings and government compensation expenditure. However, his claim that the wage bill rose only slightly from approximately US$290 million in 2018 to US$296 million in 2023 is contradicted by published financial figures showing an increase from US$292.4 million to US$301 million.
Joekai, meanwhile, has documented the government’s efforts to remove questionable payroll entries, and the IMF reported that thousands of employees had been removed or suspended pending verification. But that achievement does not automatically resolve the US$63.3 million discrepancy. The financial calculations still need to be reconciled.
On salary harmonization, the Boakai administration has publicly committed to revisiting the policy and has reportedly introduced targeted adjustments. The available evidence, however, does not establish that a comprehensive reversal has been completed.
The government’s challenge is to demonstrate that its payroll reforms are producing measurable savings, that public employees are paid under a fair and lawful system, and that public compensation is being managed transparently.
Liberians do not need another political exchange. They need the payroll records, the audited figures, the legal basis for salary changes, and a clear timetable for reform.
Until those documents are made available and reconciled, the debate between Joekai and Kolubah will remain unresolved—and taxpayers and civil servants will continue waiting for answers.
See more Liberia News Network stories in Google Search by adding LNN as one of your Preferred Sources.
★ Add LNN as a Preferred Source