By: Samuel P. Jackson Speaking on Behalf of MaWatta
The statement by Okomfo Okomfo argues that the job and GDP numbers announced by President Joseph Nyumah Boakai in Liberia’s State of the Nation Address (SONA) are credible, referencing historical data from the World Development Indicators (WDI) and critiquing dismissal of economic statistics.
My analysis aims to evaluate the justification of the claims, identify biases, and highlight faulty economic approaches inherent in the statement. Let’s be truly clear, the statement was clearly intended as a pretense to erudition and no doubt the young man is brilliant, but he possesses a political bias. The peanut gallery, his cheering crowd have accepted his statement without critical analysis. I plan to proceed accordingly.
The assertion that the President’s numbers are credible is largely based on WDI data indicating an average of over 58,000 jobs created annually in Liberia from 2005 to 2023. While historical trends can inform projections, the credibility of current and future job creation figures also depends on the methodology used to collect and report data for 2024 and 2025—periods for which official figures have not yet been disclosed.
Furthermore, GDP growth claims should be substantiated by transparent reporting of macroeconomic indicators, including sectoral contributions, investment flows, and external factors such as commodity prices or global shocks.
The authority of the World Development Indicators (WDI) to accurately state Liberia’s GDP is questionable given the significant data gaps present in the country. Liberia has faced persistent challenges in collecting comprehensive and reliable economic data, which undermines the foundation upon which GDP estimates are built.
Without consistent access to up-to-date figures from national sources, any external calculation or reporting is likely to be based on incomplete, outdated, or estimated information, raising concerns about the validity of the numbers presented.
Moreover, the absence of a robust national income accounting system in Liberia further complicates the reliability of GDP statistics disseminated by the WDI. National income accounting relies on the systematic collection and processing of economic data, and without such infrastructure, there is a heightened risk of inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
Therefore, while the WDI provides an important global database, its authority in reporting Liberia’s GDP should be approached with caution, recognizing the limitations imposed by the lack of dependable, real-time data from the country itself.
A key bias in the statement is the selective use of favorable historical data while deferring scrutiny of recent numbers to the government, potentially overlooking changes in data collection, economic shocks, or policy shifts. The argument also risks confirmation bias by accepting trends that align with the desired narrative without rigorous independent verification. Additionally, the critique of “keyboard experts” dismisses legitimate skepticism or alternative analyses, which are essential for robust economic discourse.
President Joseph Nyuma Boakai’s recent announcement of the creation of 70,000 temporary and medium-term jobs during his State of the Nation Address sparked widespread debate among the public, policy analysts, and journalists. While the headline figure suggests substantial progress in employment, a closer examination reveals several inconsistencies and raises questions about the credibility of this claim.
A key point of contention lies in the temporary and medium-term nature of the jobs referenced by President Boakai. Many of the positions reportedly stem from short-term projects, such as public works and community initiatives, rather than sustainable private sector employment.
The announcement lacked specific citations or references to verifiable data sources, and notably omitted details about private sector job creation, which is crucial for long-term economic growth. Such omissions undermine the reliability of the figures and suggest that the headline number may have been exaggerated or fabricated for political effect.
Further scrutiny reveals that a significant portion of the reported jobs are linked to the World Bank’s Realise project, which was initiated under the previous Coalition for Democratic Change (CDC) government.
While the current administration has overseen the continuation of these programs, the timeline indicates that the foundations for job creation were laid before President Boakai’s tenure. The attribution of these jobs to the current government without proper acknowledgment of prior efforts calls into question the integrity of the announcement and the accuracy of government credit.
Compounding the skepticism is the glaring absence of recent labor force surveys and independent verification of employment statistics. As of October 2025, the Minister of Labor openly admitted that no comprehensive jobs data was available, highlighting a significant gap in the country’s ability to track employment trends. This lack of transparency and credible data undermines the government’s claims and leaves analysts unable to substantiate the numbers presented.
The sudden appearance of job creation statistics during the State of the Nation Address, followed by a press conference to address mounting public skepticism, further fuels doubt regarding the authenticity of the data. The timing and context suggest that the emergence of these figures was more a response to political pressure than the result of rigorous data collection or analysis.
The government’s detailed breakdowns only deepens concerns about the validity of the claims. For example, MPW. Urban lightning, yellow Machines produced 35,000 jobs; Social protection Realise 15,000 jobs; etc. That the government would count social protection Realise jobs in its jobs data is troubling.
In light of these factors—the temporary nature of the jobs, no attribution to previous government initiatives, lack of cited sources, absence of recent labor surveys, and the Ministry of Labor’s admission of missing data—the credibility of President Boakai’s 70,000 jobs announcement remains highly suspect. The government’s approach to presenting employment statistics not only risks eroding public trust but also undermines efforts to promote transparency and accountability in governance.
Methodologically, the Okomfo’s statement calls for assessment of analytical frameworks but does not provide details on the models, definitions, or assumptions underlying the government’s announced figures. Without transparency regarding the sources and construction of the data, the credibility of the results remains uncertain. Sound economic analysis requires not only historical comparison but also contextual evaluation of data integrity, coverage gaps, and the relevance of the chosen indicators to current economic realities.
While the statement advocates for a logical and rigorous approach to evaluating economic statistics, it falls short by selectively referencing historical data and deferring critical analysis of current figures. For a more objective assessment, independent verification of the job and GDP numbers, clarity of methodology, and openness to alternative interpretations are essential. Recognizing and mitigating biases—whether in favor of or against official statistics—remains crucial for credible economic analysis in Liberia’s policy discourse.
The statement does not comprehensively analyze the composition of Liberia’s 5.1 percent GDP growth because it does not utilize the classic GDP calculation formula: C + I + G + (X – M), which breaks down GDP into its essential components—consumption, investment, government spending, and net exports.
Without this breakdown, the analysis lacks clarity on which sectors or activities are driving growth, making it impossible to assess the relative contributions of household spending, business investment, government expenditure, or trade.
A thorough economic analysis requires more than headline figures; it demands a transparent methodology that reveals the underlying structure of growth and enables informed discussion about sustainability, sectoral strengths, and policy implications.
