By Amos Harris

MONROVIA — Liberia’s Minister of Finance and Development Planning, Augustine Ngafuan, has restated the government’s commitment to enforcing the national minimum wage of $150 USD for all central government employees. However, a growing number of civil servants are questioning this claim, arguing that their take-home pay falls well below this legal threshold.

Minister Ngafuan attributes the discrepancy to various deductions, including taxes, social security, and loan repayments, which reduce an employee’s final salary but do not, he asserts, place them below the legal minimum. He also noted that salaries are disbursed with a 70% USD and 30% Liberian dollar split, a practice that further affects the cash amount employees receive. According to Ngafuan, the 2025 national budget has been adjusted in line with President Joseph Boakai’s directive to comply with the Decent Work Act, which sets the minimum wage. He urged employees with concerns to use official complaint channels and stressed the importance of financial literacy among public workers.

Despite the minister’s assurances, some employees at the Ministry of Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism (MICAT) have strongly disputed his claims. They allege that some staff members are receiving as little as $100 USD and LRD 8,000, an amount far below the mandated minimum wage. These workers contend that MICAT is “the lowest-paying ministry in Liberia,” contradicting the government’s repeated assurances that the wage law is being enforced across all agencies.

This situation has created a growing trust deficit between civil servants and the administration, raising critical questions about the credibility of Liberia’s wage enforcement and potentially undermining President Boakai’s pledge of accountability and transparency. The dispute highlights a key contradiction: if the minimum wage is truly being enforced, why do employees continue to report salaries below the legal standard? And if deductions are the issue, are workers being adequately informed and protected from potentially exploitative practices?

By Amos Harris

MONROVIA — Liberia’s Minister of Finance and Development Planning, Augustine Ngafuan, has restated the government’s commitment to enforcing the national minimum wage of $150 USD for all central government employees. However, a growing number of civil servants are questioning this claim, arguing that their take-home pay falls well below this legal threshold.

Minister Ngafuan attributes the discrepancy to various deductions, including taxes, social security, and loan repayments, which reduce an employee’s final salary but do not, he asserts, place them below the legal minimum. He also noted that salaries are disbursed with a 70% USD and 30% Liberian dollar split, a practice that further affects the cash amount employees receive. According to Ngafuan, the 2025 national budget has been adjusted in line with President Joseph Boakai’s directive to comply with the Decent Work Act, which sets the minimum wage. He urged employees with concerns to use official complaint channels and stressed the importance of financial literacy among public workers.

Despite the minister’s assurances, some employees at the Ministry of Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism (MICAT) have strongly disputed his claims. They allege that some staff members are receiving as little as $100 USD and LRD 8,000, an amount far below the mandated minimum wage. These workers contend that MICAT is “the lowest-paying ministry in Liberia,” contradicting the government’s repeated assurances that the wage law is being enforced across all agencies.

This situation has created a growing trust deficit between civil servants and the administration, raising critical questions about the credibility of Liberia’s wage enforcement and potentially undermining President Boakai’s pledge of accountability and transparency. The dispute highlights a key contradiction: if the minimum wage is truly being enforced, why do employees continue to report salaries below the legal standard? And if deductions are the issue, are workers being adequately informed and protected from potentially exploitative practices?