An opposing logical, economic and financial view to Boakai’s printing of more money by Isaac Doe
Liberia stands at a fragile economic crossroads where disciplined policy choices, not the printing of more money should drive both short and long-term stability. No well-structured economy treats the printing of additional banknotes as a credible solution to liquidity constraints (if the government will admit to one). Infact such actions often deepen the very problems they claim to resolve.
With this, let me quickly trash an argument I expect from supporters of the Unity Party. The 2021 monetary action under George Weah was fundamentally different. That exercise involved replacing old banknotes with an entirely new currency family, a move that was necessary at improving monetary control, enhancing currency integrity, and tightening policy oversight at the time of huge currency being held outside the financial system. It was a structural adjustment to earlier financial control weakness from past administrations, not an expansion of the money supply.
By contrast, printing more of the same banknotes, as the Boakai government is intending does not reform the system. It only adds additional money without addressing underlying economic weaknesses. Such a measure risks fueling inflation, weakening confidence in the currency, and eroding purchasing power.
Ultimately, the government’s four-point justification for printing additional banknotes fails to align with available economic data and established monetary principles that are public today. A prudent and thorough legislature should recognize these risks and act in ways that save the Liberian economy by rejecting this economic pregnancy even if political realities suggest otherwise.
In its justification, the government argues that the need for more money printed is necessitated for straight forward replacement of mutilated bank noted, expansion demand due to the growing economic- so they say, Gold purchase program as reserve backer and De-dollarization. Has the government loose track of its own operations? Here is while these don’t make any economic and financial sense and a time bomb for disaster.
(1) Replacement of Mutilated Banknotes Does Not Justify Expansionary Printing
In late 2025, the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL) reported that approximately L$1 billion of the 2021 banknotes in circulation are damaged or mutilated, representing just 3.4% 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 are replaced on a one-for-one basis, ensuring no net increase in money supply. Any move beyond this, particularly large-scale printing as the Boakai Government wants to do signals either policy inconsistency or undisclosed monetary objectives ( corruption). Therefore, using mutilated currency as a basis for printing additional money lacks economic credibility and warrants legislative scrutiny.
(2) Gold Reserve Accumulation Does Not Require Monetary Expansion
The proposal to strengthen reserves through gold acquisition is, in principle, a sound macroeconomic strategy. However, financing such purchases through the printed of more money introduces inflationary risk and undermines the very stability reserve accumulation seeks to achieve.
Moreover, the The Gold Reserve Act of 2026 introduced by Rivercess Senator Bill Tweahway, which mandates a 1% royalty in gold to the CBL, already provides 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, reserve accumulation should be sterilized, not inflation-financed. Printing more money to buy gold effectively expands liquidity without corresponding productivity gains, an approach inconsistent with sound monetary management.
(3) Excess Liquidity Already Exists in the System
CBL data indicates that of the L$48.734 billion printed between 2021–2022, only about L$28 billion is currently in circulation. This implies that over L$20 billion remains outside active circulation. Why can’t this be used if indeed there is a need for more money?
Furthermore, the government’s stated push toward a digital and cash-lite economy directly contradicts the rationale for expanding physical currency. Increasing supply while promoting reduced cash usage reflects policy incoherence rather than genuine market demand.
(4) De-dollarization Is a Long-Term Structural Reform, Not a Short-Term Justification*
De-dollarization is a complex and gradual process that requires macroeconomic stability, institutional credibility, and strong policy coordination. It carries significant risks, including capital flight, exchange rate volatility, and reduced investor confidence, if poorly managed.
Given these realities, 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 more money printing is economically unsound.
Printing more money today cannot credibly be justified by a something that is to happen sometimes decade from now unless the government is saying it will print plenty money now and keep it until some 10
Years from now.
Conclusion: A Case Against More Money Printing
The proposed printing of additional banknotes is not supported by fundamental economic indicators or sound monetary policy principles. Instead, it presents clear risks:
- Inflationary pressures from excess liquidity
- Currency depreciation due to weakened confidence
- Erosion of monetary discipline
- Increased vulnerability to fiscal misuse and corruption
Policy decisions of this magnitude must be grounded in transparency, data, and economic discipline—not convenience. The Legislature should therefore critically evaluate and reject Boakai’s proposal that seeks to print more money without a clear, evidence-based justification.
References:
