Former Deputy Youth and Sports Minister Isaac Doe has issued an economic warning to the Liberian Legislature, calling on lawmakers to reject President Joseph Boakai’s proposal to print additional banknotes. While Doe expresses skepticism that his appeal will be heeded, he insists that the move represents a dangerous departure from sound monetary policy.
Liberia, Doe writes, stands at a fragile economic crossroads where disciplined policy choices—not the printing of more money—should drive both short and long-term stability. He argues that no well-structured economy treats the printing of additional banknotes as a credible solution to liquidity constraints, warning that such actions often deepen the very problems they claim to resolve.
Anticipating counterarguments from supporters of the Unity Party, Doe draws a clear distinction between the current proposal and the 2021 monetary action under former President George Weah. That earlier exercise, he explains, involved replacing old banknotes with an entirely new currency family—a move necessary to improve monetary control, enhance currency integrity, and tighten policy oversight at a time when large sums were being held outside the financial system. Doe characterizes that action as a structural adjustment to earlier financial control weaknesses, not an expansion of the money supply. By contrast, he argues, printing more of the same banknotes as the Boakai government intends does not reform the system but merely adds additional money without addressing underlying economic weaknesses, risking inflation, weakened confidence in the currency, and eroded purchasing power.
Doe then systematically dismantles the government’s four-point justification for monetary expansion. On the replacement of mutilated banknotes, he notes that the Central Bank of Liberia reported in late 2025 that approximately L$1 billion of the 2021 banknotes in circulation are damaged or mutilated, representing just 3.4 percent of total currency in circulation. From a monetary policy standpoint, this is a routine currency management issue, not a justification for expanding the money supply. Standard central banking practice dictates that mutilated notes be replaced on a one-for-one basis, ensuring no net increase. Any move beyond that, particularly large-scale printing, signals either policy inconsistency or undisclosed monetary objectives, warranting legislative scrutiny.
Regarding gold reserve accumulation, Doe acknowledges that strengthening reserves through gold acquisition is in principle a sound macroeconomic strategy. However, financing such purchases through the printing of more money introduces inflationary risk and undermines the very stability reserve accumulation seeks to achieve. He points to the Gold Reserve Act of 2026, introduced by Rivercess Senator Bill Tweahway, which mandates a one percent royalty in gold to the Central Bank of Liberia, already providing a non-inflationary and non-cash purchase mechanism for gold reserve accumulation. This weakens any argument that money printing is necessary to support gold purchases. In economic terms, Doe writes, reserve accumulation should be sterilized, not inflation-financed, as printing money to buy gold expands liquidity without corresponding productivity gains.
On excess liquidity, Doe cites Central Bank data indicating that of the L$48.734 billion printed between 2021 and 2022, only about L$28 billion is currently in circulation, meaning over L$20 billion remains outside active circulation. He questions why this idle currency cannot be used if there is indeed a need for more money. Furthermore, he notes that the government’s stated push toward a digital and cash-lite economy directly contradicts the rationale for expanding physical currency, reflecting policy incoherence rather than genuine market demand.
Finally, Doe addresses de-dollarization, calling it a long-term structural reform rather than a short-term justification. He warns that de-dollarization is a complex and gradual process requiring macroeconomic stability, institutional credibility, and strong policy coordination, carrying significant risks including capital flight, exchange rate volatility, and reduced investor confidence if poorly managed. Given these realities, he argues, de-dollarization is inherently a long-term objective likely requiring years if not a decade of phased implementation. Using such a distant policy goal to justify immediate large-scale money printing is economically unsound, he writes, unless the government intends to print money now and store it for ten years.
Doe concludes that the proposed printing of additional banknotes is not supported by fundamental economic indicators or sound monetary policy principles. Instead, he warns, it presents clear risks: inflationary pressures from excess liquidity, currency depreciation due to weakened confidence, erosion of monetary discipline, and increased vulnerability to fiscal misuse and corruption. Policy decisions of this magnitude, he insists, must be grounded in transparency, data, and economic discipline—not convenience. The Legislature should therefore critically evaluate and reject Boakai’s proposal, which seeks to print more money without a clear, evidence-based justification.
