Home » Cllr. Scott Disputes Senators On NOCAL

Cllr. Scott Disputes Senators On NOCAL

By Lincoln G. Peters

Monrovia, June 4, 2026: The chairperson of the National Oil Company of Liberia (NOCAL) Board of Directors, Cllr. Gloria M. Musu-Scott has publicly disagreed with Gbarpolu County Senator Amara M. Konneh and River Gee County Senator Jonathan Boycharles Sogbie over the Legislature’s authority to issue administrative directives to agencies within the Executive Branch.

Senators Konneh and Sogbie have asked the Liberian Senate to conduct an immediate investigation into a dispute between the Liberia Petroleum Regulatory Authority (LPRA) and NOCAL over the sale of an oil block.

In a post on her official Facebook page, Musu-Scott challenged the senators’ position, arguing that the Constitution of Liberia does not empower lawmakers to issue administrative instructions directly to agencies in the Executive Branch.

Musu-Scott wrote:

“The Constitution of Liberia does not give you the authority to issue administrative instructions to an agency in the Executive Branch of government. The exercise of constitutional legislative authority does not extend to the day-to-day administrative operations of Executive Branch agencies.

“With all due respect and deference, the oversight function of the Honorable Legislature is not and cannot be administrative mandates that bypass the Presidency and go directly to the lawful day-to-day functions of an agency in the Executive Branch,” she wrote.

Earlier on Wednesday, June 3, 2026, Senator Konneh wrote on his Facebook page that he had intended to wait for the Senate investigation before publicly discussing what he described as evidence that NOCAL had disregarded the Petroleum Law.

He said the matter goes beyond the dispute over the reconnaissance license and includes what he called the illegal commitment of Liberia to fiscal terms in multiple engagement letters with oil companies.

Konneh said he decided to respond publicly after NOCAL Vice President Emmanuel Azango addressed the matter in public before the Senate began its review. Konneh said he wanted to clarify the issue surrounding the reconnaissance license and rejected what he described as a false narrative in Azango’s response.

Konneh said there is no dispute over NOCAL’s authority under Section 7(e) to administer reconnaissance licenses. He said his concern is whether NOCAL can authorize or engage in reconnaissance petroleum activities without first obtaining a license from the LPRA.

“What my colleagues and I asked the Senate to investigate yesterday is whether NOCAL has the authority to authorize or engage in reconnaissance petroleum activities without first obtaining a license from the LPRA. Granting or authorizing a reconnaissance license is entirely different from administering or supervising one,” he wrote.

According to Konneh, Section 11.1 of the Petroleum Law reserves the authority to authorize or approve a reconnaissance license for the LPRA, while Section 7(e) allows NOCAL to administer or supervise such a license only after it has been awarded by the LPRA.

Konneh said the two roles are sequential, with NOCAL’s responsibilities beginning after the LPRA’s licensing role is complete. He argued that repeated references to NOCAL’s administrative authority distract from what he sees as the central legal question.

He said that after the Senate addresses the reconnaissance license issue raised in the letter, he and his colleagues intend to turn to what he described as a more serious matter: NOCAL’s alleged unilateral commitment of the country to fiscal terms in multiple engagement letters with oil companies.

Konneh said the LPRA’s authority covers six steps across phases one and two, while NOCAL’s administrative role begins in phase three.

He added that although the Petroleum Law may not grant the LPRA exclusive authority over reconnaissance licenses, the law separates the responsibilities of the two agencies. He said the senators want the Senate to determine whether NOCAL has respected that division of authority and to address what they believe are broader implications for the credibility of Liberia’s petroleum governance system.