BY: Hon. Musa Hassan Bility, Representative, District 7, Nimba County
House of Representatives, Republic of Liberia
Today I speak as one of the many servants of the Liberian people and as a member of the House of Representatives, deeply troubled by the recent passage of the so called Threshold Bill. It is framed as a technical threshold instrument.
In truth it raises serious questions under our Constitution and creates a social, economic and political distortion that our country cannot afford.
The Liberian Constitution is clear. It is the supreme and fundamental law of the Republic. Every public official, from the President to the least appointed officer, is bound by it.
When any act of the Legislature departs from the Constitution, that act is void to the extent of the inconsistency, and it is the Supreme Court that is charged with the sacred duty to say so. When the House abandons constitutional discipline, the people are left with only two shields, their voice and their Court.
The stated subject of this bill is the setting of the population threshold for electoral districts after the national census. The Constitution authorizes the Legislature to prescribe the number of citizens that should form a constituency. It ties that authority to actual population figures and to the principle that constituencies must have as close to equal population as possible. It also vests the National Elections Commission with the task of using that threshold and the census to reapportion constituencies before every set of elections.
The logic is simple. The Legislature sets a neutral rule built on numbers and fairness. The Elections Commission applies that rule in a technical manner so that each Liberian voter has roughly the same weight in the choice of members of the House. The people are supposed to choose their representatives inside a framework that is rational, equal and predictable, not in a field distorted by political bargaining for more seats.
The Threshold Bill departs from this design. Instead of simply adjusting the threshold to reflect our population reality and leaving the present number of seats in place for the Elections Commission to fairly reassign, the bill presses for more seats. It uses the language of threshold, but the real effect is expansion of the Legislature. The result is not better equality in representation. It is more chairs in an institution that has already failed to prove its value to the ordinary citizen.
This is not only a constitutional deviation. It is a moral and economic provocation.
Let us look at the economic facts. Increasing the number of representative seats by 14—a nearly 20 percent increase—means that almost 14 percent of the national legislature indicating an insane total of 87 representatives a single stroke. If we add 14 percent of legislators’ expenses to the legislative budget, which currently stands at $52 million, we are not just talking about a small adjustment. This increases the budget to approximately $60 million, without the effects of inflation leading up to events in 2030 when the changes will take place.
And this is only the beginning. The Citizens Movement for Change (CMC) can clearly envision the legislative budget exceeding $100 million in short order, as every additional seat brings with it not just a salary, but also allowances, staff, office expenses, and other entitlements. This is a permanent and escalating cost to the Liberian taxpayer.
The economic impact of such an increase extends well beyond the legislature itself. Redirecting tens of millions of dollars annually toward legislative expenses means that less funding will be available for critical sectors such as health, education, and social welfare. For instance, with Liberia already facing pressing health challenges, every dollar spent on additional legislative salaries and benefits is a dollar not invested in hospitals, clinics, or vaccination programs.
In education, the diversion of funds may translate to fewer resources for schools, teacher training, and student support, ultimately limiting opportunities for the nation’s youth. Social welfare programs, which provide essential support to vulnerable populations, could also suffer budget cuts as a result of increased legislative spending.
Furthermore, this diversion of funds risks undermining national development priorities. When government resources are allocated to maintaining a larger legislative body, there is less flexibility to respond to emergencies or invest in infrastructure that benefits the broader population.
The long-term economic consequence is a cycle in which critical public services are underfunded, exacerbating inequality and hindering sustainable growth. In summary, while increasing representation may have its justifications, the economic argument against it is clear: the cost is not just the additional millions spent on the legislature, but also the opportunity cost of what those funds could have accomplished in health, education, and social welfare for all Liberians.
Our country is facing a deep social and economic crisis. Our people are struggling to pay school fees, to find medical care, to afford food and transport. Public hospitals lack the most basic supplies. Classrooms are overcrowded. Young people are roaming the streets without jobs and without hope. At the same time, the cost of government is already consuming a very large share of the national budget, with little visible return for the people who fund it.
In this context, the decision of the House to add more seats for politicians, when the present seats have produced no meaningful dividend for the people, is an act of insensitivity. It sends a painful message that, in the face of hunger and hardship, the priority of the Legislature is to expand its own space rather than reduce its burden on the taxpayer. It is difficult to defend such a choice under the constitutional duty to manage national resources in the interest of the general welfare.
The bill also deepens a political disease that already infects our system. Instead of treating representation as a sacred trust, it encourages a scramble for more positions. It invites political actors to fight over new districts when the representatives in the existing districts have not delivered roads, schools, clinics or justice for their people. It converts the idea of a population threshold into a tool for patronage. It teaches the wrong lesson, that when the public is dissatisfied with the performance of officials, the answer is to create more officials rather than to demand better performance or to reform the system.
By departing from the constitutional model, the bill undermines the integrity of elections themselves. If the Legislature can, in effect, script the number and shape of seats to suit present political interests, the promise of equal representation becomes an illusion. Voters in some areas will continue to carry a heavier load than others. The value of a vote will depend on where a citizen lives, not on the equal dignity the Constitution promises to every Liberian. This erodes trust in the democratic process and invites resentment between counties, communities and parties.
There is also a generational injustice buried in this law. The Constitution imposes limits on the size of the House for a reason. It is a reminder that the Republic does not belong only to those who hold power today. It belongs to those who will come after us. Space within the constitutional ceiling should be preserved for future generations, who may need to make adjustments in a different social and economic context. To rush and consume that space now, for the comfort of the present political class, is to mortgage the future of our children for the short term advantage of a few.
The Liberian people are watching. Many may not know the exact article numbers, the legal language, or the internal procedures of the House, but they understand when their leaders put themselves first and the country last. They understand when the Constitution is treated as a suggestion instead of a command. They understand when the rules are bent so that those already seated in power can pull more chairs into the room.
For these reasons, I raise these concerns in language that the Supreme Court can understand as well as the ordinary citizen. I want our people to know that some of us within the Legislature do not consent to this course. We believe that respect for the Constitution is not a choice. It is a duty. We believe that at a time of hardship, government must show restraint, not self expansion. We believe that representation is measured by service and impact, not by the number of seats and titles.
If at any point this matter is properly brought before the Supreme Court in a constitutional proceeding, I trust that the Court will examine the Threshold Bill in the light of the clear text and spirit of the Constitution.
I trust that it will test whether the bill respects the requirements on equal population, proper use of census data, and the distinct roles of the Legislature and the Elections Commission. I trust that it will measure the bill against the duty of the state to manage public resources in a manner that advances the welfare of the people, not the comfort of their leaders.
Liberia is at a fragile moment. Our people need confidence that someone is still guarding the gate of the law. They need to see that when the political branches lose their way, there remains an impartial guardian that will call them back to the Constitution we all swore to uphold.
I therefore respectfully call on the Liberian Senate to refuse concurrence in this bill and to insist on a proper threshold law that keeps the present number of seats and places equality and national interest above political comfort. I call on citizens, civil society, the media and all friends of democracy to study this bill, to understand its real effect, and to speak out against it. And I call on the Supreme Court, when the time comes, to remember that the Constitution is not a decoration. It is the shield of the people and the restraint on power.
Liberia does not belong to this generation alone. It belongs as well to the children who are yet unborn. We betray them when we bend the rules for our own advantage. We honor them when we insist that the Constitution means what it says
