“This is a constitutional red line. And the Liberian people are watching how you lead through this.” – Representative Musa Hassan Bility.
When the Ministry of Justice abruptly withdrew a court-issued subpoena for the Liberian Senate’s financial records, Representative Musa Hassan Bility warned that this single act has pushed the country toward a constitutional crisis over accountability and executive interference. He argues that this decision tests whether Liberia will uphold the rule of law for all, or protect powerful institutions when scrutiny becomes uncomfortable.
According to Rep. Bility, the controversy arose after the General Auditing Commission (GAC), acting under Article 89 of the Constitution and its 2014 Act, conducted a compliance and financial audit of the Liberian Senate for 2018–2023. “The audit report identified serious financial management irregularities,” he notes, including unsupported expenditures totaling millions in both Liberian and United States dollars, payments made without proper documentation, unreconciled disbursements, weak internal controls, and failure to fully account for public funds. He stresses that these are not political accusations, but “official audit conclusions issued by the GAC…the constitutionally mandated auditing authority of the Republic.”
Rep. Bility recalls that the Ministry of Justice initially took what seemed a commendable step by hiring a private prosecutor to examine the GAC report. “The country welcomed this. The Liberian people were proud,” he writes, explaining that it signaled seriousness and independence and suggested that no institution would be beyond review. After reviewing the audit, the prosecutor determined that there was a sufficient legal basis to seek additional evidence to assess possible criminal liability under the Penal Law, including misapplication of entrusted property and economic sabotage.
On that basis, the prosecutor sought and obtained a subpoena duces tecum from the First Judicial Circuit Court, Criminal Assizes “A”, Montserrado County, compelling the Secretary of the Senate to produce specific financial records tied directly to the audit findings. “This is how due process works… investigation, initial evidence gathering, and judicial authorization for the compelled production of additional evidence,” Rep. Bility explains. “This was not persecution. This was not politics. This was the RULE OF LAW in motion.”
But immediately after the court issued the subpoena, the Ministry of Justice moved to have it withdrawn. Rep. Bility says this action “demands national attention.” He warns that when a subpoena grounded in an official audit and judicial approval is withdrawn by the Executive, “the implications are grave” and raise “serious constitutional concerns regarding the separation of powers and potential interference with the judicial process.”
He reminds the nation that the Constitution “does not create islands of immunity,” does not allow selective enforcement, and does not permit investigations only until they become uncomfortable. Citing Article 1, he stresses that all power is inherent in the people, and the funds in question “are not the Senate’s money. They are not the Executive’s money. It is the Liberian people’s money, and public funds must be accounted for fully and transparently.”
Rep. Bility further invokes Article 3, which establishes separate, coordinate branches of government. He argues this structure was deliberately designed to prevent one branch from interfering in another’s lawful processes. “Separation of powers does not mean separation from accountability. No branch is above lawful scrutiny,” he writes. He cautions that if legal tools are used aggressively in political cases or leadership disputes but are withdrawn when they touch financial transparency, then “the law cannot be courageous in politics and cautious in finance.”
For Rep. Bility, a subpoena is neither a conviction nor an accusation, but simply “a request for documents to ascertain the truth.” If there is nothing to hide, he argues, the Senate should not object to producing the documents, and the Ministry of Justice should not need to withdraw the subpoena. Its withdrawal before compliance, he says, raises “legitimate constitutional questions,” signals potential obstruction, and threatens both the judicial and financial management systems. “It suggests that accountability may be conditional. And that is a dangerous precedent!”
Directly addressing the President, Rep. Bility calls this “a defining moment of your leadership.” He reminds him that he was elected on promises of reform and integrity and that “the Liberian people did not vote for selective accountability.” According to Bility, they did not choose a government that pursues investigations “only until they implicate powerful people,” but one committed to the equal application of the law. “No amount of pressure, negotiation, or internal discomfort should override that principle,” he warns.
He further cautions that if the subpoena withdrawal is not corrected, it will be “interpreted as Executive interference in a process that had already been lawfully initiated and was proceeding in accordance with law.” He argues that history “will not measure this moment by technical legal explanations,” but by “whether the fight against corruption advanced or retreated.”
Rep. Bility also insists that accountability must not stop with the Senate. “If similar concerns exist within the House of Representatives – and we are told they do – then transparency must move there as well,” he writes. He calls for audits to be examined, subpoenas to be issued where needed, and documents to be produced, declaring that “there should be no sacred cows. No protected offices. No selective justice.” For him, “This is not about personalities. This is about whether Liberia will institutionalize accountability or politicize it.”
In closing, he urges the President: “Do not allow this to become the moment where the fight faltered.” He calls on him to “assert the authority of your office not to shield, but to strengthen transparency. Not to withdraw lawful scrutiny, but to reinforce it. Not to weaken a judicially approved process, but to uphold the Constitution you swore to defend.”
“This is a constitutional red line,” Rep. Musa Hassan Bility concludes, “and the Liberian people are watching how you lead through this.”
