The Liberian government’s involvement in the High Power Exploration (HPX) infrastructure project, estimated at $5 billion, is generating more questions than answers, especially when viewed through the lens of Liberia’s fiscal priorities and national interest. At the center of this debate is not only the legal procedure of concession agreements, as vigorously defended by Nimba County District #7 Representative Musa Hassan Bility, but the sheer size of the budget and the long-term implications it carries for Liberia’s sovereignty, transparency, and economic direction.
Representative Bility, in a widely circulated statement, took a swipe at what he called the “so-called intellectual community” for criticizing the agreement. He emphasized, in no uncertain terms, that the President must sign the HPX deal before it can be sent to the Legislature for ratification. “This is not up for debate,” he declared. “It is a matter of established legal and procedural protocol.” Bility’s tone was not just corrective, it was scolding, suggesting that those who challenge the agreement are either ignorant or dishonest.
But beneath the procedural semantics lies a much more serious concern: Liberia may be walking into a multibillion dollar infrastructure agreement without fully understanding or disclosing its fiscal and strategic implications. If this is truly a $5 billion project, where are the cost-benefit analyses, environmental impact assessments, and national interest studies? Who will bear the financial and environmental risks? And how exactly will this massive investment translate into tangible development for ordinary Liberians?
HPX, now rebranded as Ivanhoe Atlantic, has made ambitious promises. Through its Liberty Corridor, the company plans to construct a deep-water port and railway to transport iron ore from Guinea’s Nimba mountain range through Liberia. This corridor, we are told, will create jobs, stimulate trade, and transform Liberia into a regional logistics hub. It sounds visionary, even transformative. But Liberia has heard similar promises before, many times, from many companies.
What makes this case more worrying is the level of opacity surrounding it. Though the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia has issued a glowing endorsement of the $1.8 billion concession and access agreement, emphasizing its alignment with President Boakai’s infrastructure and trade goals, it’s still unclear what safeguards are in place to protect Liberia’s public interest. This is especially urgent given that the HPX plan is contingent on Guinea allowing its iron ore to be exported through Liberian territory. And yet, when Liberian officials asked HPX for formal documentation of Guinea’s approval, the company reportedly failed to provide any. This raises serious red flags about the viability of the entire project.
Even more troubling is HPX’s lobbying campaign in Washington to secure U.S. government backing. According to a U.S. State Department official speaking anonymously, Guinea has invested over $15 billion in its own domestic rail infrastructure, making it highly unlikely to endorse a competing route through Liberia. So why is HPX telling Liberians it has the green light from Conakry?
The Liberian people deserve to know what exactly the country stands to gain or lose from this $5 billion arrangement. Is this merely a transit deal, or are there long-term revenue-sharing provisions for the Liberian treasury? Will the government be taking on any debt or providing tax breaks that ultimately undermine its own capacity to collect revenue? Will local communities along the proposed railway corridor benefit from schools, clinics, and social services, or will they simply watch foreign ore roll by?
These are not fringe questions. They are central to the integrity of Liberia’s development strategy. And they must be addressed before the Legislature is expected to rubber-stamp a deal that could bind the country to complex obligations for decades to come.
It’s worth recalling that HPX is not new to controversy. Its billionaire backer, Robert Friedland, is known for aggressive resource extraction ventures around the world. While that doesn’t automatically disqualify the company from doing business in Liberia, it does raise the bar for due diligence, public accountability, and transparency.
Liberia cannot afford another agreement where corporate ambition outpaces government oversight. If this is indeed the largest infrastructure project in recent Liberian history, then it must be subjected to the most rigorous public scrutiny. That starts not with defensive political posturing or finger-pointing at critics, but with a clear explanation of the numbers. How will the $5 billion be spent? What portion, if any, flows into Liberia’s national budget? And what contingency plans exist if Guinea pulls out of the arrangement?
The Legislature must not be used as a ceremonial stamp of approval for deals already signed in private. It must function as the people’s final line of defense, asking the hard questions and refusing to be bullied by claims of “ignorance” when citizens demand clarity.
For now, the numbers don’t add up. Until they do, Liberia would be wise to pause, reassess, and demand more than rhetoric. It must demand facts, protections, and above all, accountability.
Like this:
Like Loading…
