Pressure Mounts on Massaquoi to Disclose Revenue | Investment

MONROVIA — President Joseph Nyuma Boakai suspended a controversial telecommunications monitoring arrangement in the name of protecting public resources. Now, months after the Liberia Telecommunications Authority assumed temporary control of the system, its chairman, Clarence K. Massaquoi, is refusing to disclose how much revenue it has generated — turning the matter into a fresh test of the administration’s transparency agenda.

Massaquoi has come under growing pressure from journalists, civil society organizations and accountability advocates to state how much revenue has been collected through the International Gateway Monitoring System since the LTA assumed temporary management of the operation.

But the LTA chairman has declined to provide a figure, reportedly maintaining that he is not accountable to the various groups demanding the information and that his accountability rests with President Boakai.

His position has raised a larger question: can the revenue generated by a public institution be withheld from public scrutiny simply because the head of that institution reports to the President?

The controversy is particularly significant because the LTA did not assume control of the monitoring system under ordinary circumstances.

On November 3, 2025, President Boakai issued Executive Order No. 154 suspending the LTA’s arrangement with Telecom International Alliance (TIA) following concerns raised by Liberia’s accountability and procurement institutions over alleged irregularities surrounding the agreement.

The Public Procurement and Concessions Commission subsequently raised concerns about aspects of the procurement process and circumstances surrounding TIA’s establishment.

Following the government’s intervention, temporary management of the International Gateway Monitoring System was transferred to the LTA, with the administration presenting the action as necessary to protect public resources and address concerns surrounding the original arrangement.

That history has made the current dispute over revenue disclosure particularly consequential.

If the original arrangement was suspended partly to safeguard public resources, accountability advocates argue, then the public should be able to establish how much money has been generated under the government’s subsequent management of the system.

The LTA has previously rejected allegations of corruption surrounding its management of the system and expressed willingness to cooperate with an independent financial audit.

Such an audit could establish the amount generated, when the revenues were collected, where the funds were deposited and how they were subsequently transferred, allocated or otherwise managed.

But until such an audit is completed and made available, Massaquoi’s refusal to provide even an aggregate revenue figure has left a basic financial question unanswered.

The controversy contrasts with the practice of other major public revenue-generating institutions, including the Liberia Revenue Authority and other state entities that periodically disclose revenue collections or financial performance.

The LTA, meanwhile, regulates one of Liberia’s most commercially significant sectors and exercises considerable authority over telecommunications operators.

Questions surrounding money generated through a state-controlled telecommunications monitoring system therefore extend beyond Massaquoi personally. They concern the government’s broader obligation to account for public revenue.

Massaquoi has also disclosed that he received correspondence from lawyers representing TIA and indicated that he is mindful of possible legal action arising from the government’s suspension of the company’s arrangement.

Sources at the LTA, however, said that at the time Massaquoi made those remarks, the Authority itself had not received communication from TIA.

The contents and precise nature of the correspondence referenced by Massaquoi have not been publicly disclosed.

While the possibility of litigation could require confidentiality around certain legal communications, it remains unclear why that would prevent disclosure of aggregate revenue already collected through a system being managed by a public institution.

The dispute is also drawing attention to Liberia’s wider accountability framework.

The General Auditing Commission, Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission and Public Procurement and Concessions Commission each exercise statutory responsibilities involving aspects of public financial management, integrity and procurement.

Journalists and civil society organizations also routinely seek information from government institutions concerning the collection and use of public resources.

Massaquoi’s reported assertion that he is accountable to President Boakai has therefore raised questions about whether accountability to the Executive can be treated as a substitute for accountability through Liberia’s established laws and institutions.

It also comes against the LTA’s own stated commitment to transparency.

In July 2026, the LTA Board signed a performance contract emphasizing accountability, transparency and service delivery, with performance targets and benchmarks against which the Authority’s work would be assessed.

The continuing refusal to disclose the traffic-monitoring revenue now puts those commitments under scrutiny.

For the Boakai administration, the controversy presents an equally important governance test.

The President’s suspension of the TIA arrangement was presented as an intervention intended to address concerns raised by accountability and procurement institutions. His administration has also repeatedly placed transparency and responsible management of public resources among its governance priorities.

That makes the question increasingly difficult to avoid: How much money has the LTA collected from the International Gateway Monitoring System since taking temporary control?

Beyond the total amount, further questions follow: Where was the money deposited? Who controls the account? What amounts have been transferred to government revenue accounts, if applicable? What expenditures have been made against the collections? And what independent reconciliation has been conducted?

Those are questions that financial records and an independent audit should be capable of answering.

The Center for Transparency and Accountability in Liberia and other civil society actors have long advocated greater openness around government contracting and public financial management, while journalists continue to press institutions for information necessary to scrutinize the management of state resources.

The LTA dispute has consequently evolved beyond an argument between Massaquoi and those demanding answers.

At stake is whether revenue generated through the exercise of public authority can be subjected to the same scrutiny expected of other government resources.

President Boakai may ultimately have an important role in settling that question.

If Massaquoi’s position is that his accountability rests with the President, the administration can require that the relevant financial records be subjected to the appropriate oversight mechanisms and that information which can lawfully be made public is disclosed.

Doing so would also reinforce the rationale upon which the government intervened in the TIA arrangement in the first place: protecting public resources.

Until the amount generated through the telecommunications monitoring system is established and independently verifiable, questions surrounding its management are unlikely to disappear.

For an administration that intervened in the system in the name of accountability, the next test may be considerably simpler: account for the money.