A single-page letter from President Joseph N. Boakai directing Finance Minister Augustine Kpehe Ngafuan to facilitate payment of a US$355,106 judgment against the Liberia Electricity Corporation (LEC) has thrust the Executive into a constitutional confrontation over who has the authority to commit public money.

The July 3, 2026 letter, which surfaced Tuesday, September 22, during Mandamus proceedings before Supreme Court Chambers Justice Ceaineh D. Clinton-Johnson, has become the central document in a dispute that began as a commercial debt case but has now evolved into a test of Liberia's constitutional separation of powers.

The letter has not been published, gazette, or presented to the Legislature. Yet it was subsequently cited by the Debt Court as the basis for declining further enforcement against LEC in favor of Swedish engineering company ELTEL Networks, which holds a final judgment against the state-owned electricity corporation.

At the heart of the dispute is a deceptively simple question: Can the President, by letter, direct the payment of a judgment incurred by a state-owned enterprise when the Constitution and public financial management laws place restrictions on the assumption of public debt, guarantees and expenditure from the Consolidated Fund?

Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn

Justice Clinton-Johnson has reserved a ruling on that question until Monday, September 28.

The ruling could determine not only whether ELTEL receives the remaining US$355,106.19 owed under its judgment, but also how Liberia treats the financial liabilities of its state-owned enterprises.

The underlying debt itself is not contested.

In 2016, ELTEL Networks supplied low-voltage materials to LEC under a supply agreement. After LEC failed to settle the obligation, ELTEL, through its Attorney-in-Fact, Hans Armstrong, instituted an Action of Debt before the Debt Court for Montserrado County.

In January 2026, Debt Court Judge James E. Jones ordered the sealing of LEC's Waterside headquarters after the corporation failed to satisfy the judgment. The enforcement action was subsequently upheld by the full bench of the Supreme Court on January 23, 2026, in connection with a judgment totaling US$415,327.08, including principal, interest and costs.

LEC subsequently made two partial payments in March 2026 totaling US60,221.89,reducingtheoutstandingbalancetoUS355,106.19.

It was after those payments that the case took a dramatic turn.

On August 25, 2026, Judge Jones, who had previously authorized enforcement measures against LEC, including the seizure of assets and the arrest of Managing Director Mohamed Sheriff, declined to proceed further against the corporation.

The reason was the July 3 presidential letter.

According to the proceedings, President Boakai had directed Minister Ngafuan to facilitate settlement of judgment debts, including the ELTEL obligation. With the Finance Ministry having been directed to address the judgment, the Debt Court considered further enforcement against LEC inappropriate.

That decision effectively moved the fight from LEC's balance sheet to the Government's books.

It also raised a much larger constitutional question: When does a debt owed by a state-owned corporation become a debt of the Republic?

Sources familiar with Tuesday's proceedings told the Daily Observer that Justice Clinton-Johnson questioned the legal basis upon which the presidential directive could result in payment from public funds, particularly in the absence of legislative authorization, Debt Management Committee approval and an identified budgetary appropriation.

One senior lawyer familiar with the proceedings put the issue bluntly: "It had only one signature: The President himself."

That observation goes to the heart of the case.

Article 34(d)(iii) of Liberia's 1986 Constitution provides that no loans may be raised by the Government on behalf of the Republic, and no guarantees may be given for any public institution or authority, except by or under the authority of a legislative enactment.

The Public Financial Management Act of 2009, as amended in 2019, establishes additional controls governing government borrowing, guarantees, contingent liabilities and expenditure from the Consolidated Fund.

Among other provisions, the law places government borrowing within limits established by the Legislature and establishes procedures for government guarantees and financial commitments involving contingent liabilities.

The legal question therefore is not whether the President can instruct a Cabinet minister to pursue a policy objective. It is whether such an instruction can, without the statutory procedures governing public finance, create an enforceable financial obligation against the Republic.

One constitutional lawyer who attended the proceedings drew a distinction between executive direction and legal authorization.

"The President can recommend payment under Article 50, which gives him power to execute the laws," the lawyer said. "He cannot authorize payment from the Consolidated Fund. Only the Legislature authorizes, only the Minister executes after DMC approval."

That distinction is now being tested before the Supreme Court.

The case also raises questions about how the July 3 intervention originated and who may have influenced the Executive's decision to intervene in a commercial judgment against an SOE.

Debt Court minutes dated June 3, 2026, obtained by the Daily Observer, show that LEC was represented during the proceedings by Attorney Al-Varney Rogers of Mesurado Law Partners Inc.

Public filings identify Cllr. Bushuben M. Keita as Managing Partner and Managing Director of Mesurado Law Partners Inc. Keita also serves as Legal Advisor to President Boakai.

The overlap has drawn scrutiny because the presidential letter emerged while the ELTEL litigation was still being contested and after the Ministry of Justice had invoked national-security concerns over the possible closure of LEC.

During the Action of Debt proceedings, the Ministry of Justice, including then Solicitor General Cllr. Augustine Fayiah, argued that shutting down LEC could disrupt electricity services and have national-security implications.

Those arguments introduced a public-interest dimension into what had begun as a straightforward creditor-versus-debtor dispute.

But they did not, by themselves, answer the separate question of who has legal authority to assume LEC's judgment debt.

That distinction is critical.

Government ownership does not necessarily mean that every financial obligation of an SOE automatically becomes an obligation of the Republic.

Liberian jurisprudence has previously recognized the separate juridical personality of state-owned corporations.

In litigation involving the National Port Authority, the courts treated the NPA as a distinct juridical entity rather than simply another arm of the central government. The NPA's status as a separate legal entity was significant to the question of whether obligations incurred by the corporation could automatically be attributed to Liberia.

The precedent has renewed attention on the legal status of Liberia's SOEs and the extent to which the Executive can intervene in their financial obligations.

The issue is particularly consequential because the Government owns or controls numerous state-owned enterprises with substantial financial and commercial exposure.

If a presidential letter can transfer an SOE's final judgment debt to the Republic without a legislative appropriation or other statutory authorization, lawyers argue that the distinction between the liabilities of SOEs and those of the central government could become increasingly difficult to maintain.

The implications could extend well beyond ELTEL.

The case potentially raises questions about other outstanding judgments and financial obligations involving state-owned entities, including the National Port Authority and other public corporations.

It also touches on Liberia's broader public-debt management framework, under which SOE liabilities can carry implications for the central government where guarantees or other forms of government support exist.

For the Finance Ministry, the issue is equally consequential.

Minister Ngafuan is the first respondent in the Mandamus proceedings, and the Court is being asked to determine the legal effect of the President's directive and whether the Ministry has an enforceable obligation to act upon it.

The record shows that LEC made only US60,221.89inpartialpayments,leavingUS355,106.19 outstanding.

Whether the balance should now be paid directly from public funds is precisely what the Court must confront.

The case has therefore moved beyond the question of whether ELTEL is a legitimate judgment creditor.

It is now a test of the limits of executive power over public money.

The President may direct policy. The Finance Minister may execute appropriations. State-owned corporations may incur commercial obligations. Courts may enter and enforce judgments.

But where does the constitutional authority to make one entity's debt the Republic's debt come from?

That is the question now before Justice Clinton-Johnson.

And the answer could determine whether the July 3 letter was simply an executive instruction to resolve an urgent national problem--or an attempt to assume a public financial obligation without the legislative process required by law.

For ELTEL, the immediate issue is the unpaid US$355,106.19.

For LEC, it is whether the corporation remains legally responsible for its own judgment debt.

For the Finance Ministry, it is whether the President's directive provides sufficient legal authority to release public funds.

For the Legislature, it is a question about the constitutional power of the purse.

And for the Supreme Court, it is ultimately a question about where executive authority ends when public money is at stake.

Justice Clinton-Johnson is expected to deliver her ruling on September 28, 2026.