Nimba County Electoral District #2 Representative Nyahn G. Flomo Sr. Writes:
A Constitutional Response to Senator Samuel Kogar’s Assertion
Senator Samuel Kogar’s concerns may, at first glance, appear to be rooted in the Legislature’s constitutional authority over public expenditure. However, a closer examination of the Vice President’s remarks and the constitutional roles of the Executive and the Legislature reveals that the criticism is premature and rests on an incorrect interpretation of executive authority.
First, accepting Senator Kogar’s argument would effectively require the President or Vice President to seek legislative approval before making any policy pronouncement at a public event. That is neither required by the Constitution nor consistent with the functions of the Executive Branch.
The President, as Head of State and Head of Government, has the constitutional authority to articulate government policy, express executive intentions, and communicate development priorities. Public commitments to explore or pursue development projects are part of executive leadership and do not, by themselves, constitute an appropriation of public funds.
Second, Senator Kogar’s position risks undermining the doctrine of separation of powers. Under Liberia’s constitutional framework, the Executive formulates policy and proposes programs, while the Legislature scrutinizes, amends, and approves appropriations where required by law. The Legislature’s oversight role begins when the Executive presents funding proposals or requests legislative authorization, not at the moment a policy objective is announced. Suggesting otherwise blurs the constitutional boundaries between policymaking and legislative appropriation.
Third, the Vice President’s statement did not establish a specific timeline for the construction of the solar farm. His words merely conveyed that the President had directed that the government would “work around it.” Such language expresses intent and commitment to pursue a solution, not an immediate expenditure or legally binding obligation.
Fourth, the Vice President never stated that the project would be financed during the current fiscal year or through the existing national budget. There was no indication that funds had already been allocated or that the Executive intended to bypass the Legislature’s appropriations authority.
Fifth, Senator Kogar’s assumption that the project could only be financed through legislative appropriation overlooks the numerous funding mechanisms available to governments.
Development initiatives may be supported through international donor assistance, development partner grants, concessional financing, public-private partnerships, corporate social responsibility initiatives, or other legally permissible funding arrangements that may not require new appropriations from the national budget.
Finally, Senator Kogar’s response appears premature. His constitutional responsibility is to scrutinize any budgetary request or appropriation proposal that the Executive may eventually submit.
If and when a proposal for funding the solar farm reaches the Legislature, he is fully entitled to question its necessity, affordability, and legality.
Until then, criticizing a general policy pronouncement amounts to reacting to a proposal that has not yet materialized. In political terms, one might say the Senator is dancing before the music starts.
Legislative oversight is most effective when exercised at the appropriate constitutional stage, rather than in anticipation of actions the Executive has not yet taken.
With my less than three years in Government, I recognize that the Executive has the authority to announce its policy intentions, while the Legislature retains its full constitutional authority to approve, modify, or reject any funding proposal when it is formally presented. As members of the Legislature, statements and comments that prove to the contrary risk portraying us legislators as not knowing our constitutional roles and responsibilities.
