A storm is once again brewing in Liberia’s Legislature, this time over accusations of bribery, corporate manipulation, and legislative integrity. At the center of the controversy is Nimba County Senator Nya D. Twayen, who has accused steel giant ArcelorMittal Liberia (AML) of bribing lawmakers with what he called a “luxurious trip” to its concession areas. His charges have ignited a fiery debate not only about AML’s compliance with its Mineral Development Agreement (MDA) but also about how the Legislature conducts oversight of foreign investors. Senator Twayen’s criticisms were sharp and uncompromising. He alleged that AML was attempting to whitewash its noncompliance by luring lawmakers into extravagant tours, complete with high-profile hospitality.
According to him, no amount of public relations could erase the company’s “gross violations” of its obligations to the Liberian people. He went further to accuse AML of inflating its investment claims, pointing to testimony that revealed a plant previously advertised as being worth $1.4 billion was actually valued at just $250 million. The Senator also dismissed the legitimacy of the so-called “Joint Legislative Committee on MDA Compliance,” which recently conducted a fact-finding mission to Nimba County. In his view, no such body had been officially authorized by plenary, making the trip unlawful and illegitimate. For him, the oversight mission was nothing more than a clandestine, politically motivated excursion designed to benefit AML rather than the people.
Yet, the Committee, chaired by Senator Numene T. H. Bartekwa with Senator Simeon B. Taylor as Co-Chair, has responded with equal force. Speaking from Ganta, the Committee rejected Twayen’s claims outright, labeling them as misleading, reckless, and damaging to the credibility of the Legislature. Their defense is anchored in the principle that oversight is not tourism, but a constitutional duty. Lawmakers, they argued, cannot hold concessionaires accountable without first seeing conditions on the ground. The Committee insists its mission was neither secretive nor luxurious, but rather a structured and transparent exercise designed to gather facts, hear directly from affected communities, and assess AML’s compliance record.
According to the group, stakeholders had been duly notified, and the process was aligned with established oversight procedures. The core of this dispute goes beyond personalities. It highlights the fragile balance Liberia must maintain: holding powerful investors accountable while safeguarding the country’s reputation as a destination for foreign investment. Senator Twayen argues that AML’s failures have compounded frustrations in Nimba, Bong, and Grand Bassa counties, where promises of clinics, road projects, and social development funds remain unfulfilled. The Committee, however, stresses that confrontation and hostility will not resolve these problems, warning that inflammatory rhetoric could undermine investor confidence and risk jobs for thousands of Liberians.
The numbers underscore AML’s significance. The company is Liberia’s largest private investor and employer, with over 5,000 direct jobs and thousands more indirect beneficiaries. Its Phase II expansion alone promises an additional 5,000 jobs, a vital contribution to a struggling economy. For the Committee, these realities make it imperative to pursue constructive engagement rather than political grandstanding. Still, the frustrations of ordinary Liberians must not be minimized. Communities in the concession areas have endured environmental degradation, social displacement, and unmet obligations. Twayen’s anger reflects genuine grievances, but his critics argue that turning every oversight visit into an accusation of corruption risks paralyzing the Legislature and weakening accountability rather than strengthening it.
Ultimately, this controversy is not just about AML, nor is it simply about one Senator versus a Committee. It is about whether Liberia’s lawmakers can demonstrate maturity, unity, and integrity in managing the nation’s resources. Oversight requires transparency, yes—but it also requires cooperation. If legislators allow infighting and public mudslinging to dominate, then the true beneficiaries will be neither AML nor the people of Nimba, but the dysfunction that has long undermined Liberia’s governance. The Joint Committee has pledged to compile a comprehensive report for submission to the full Legislature, with recommendations for corrective action. If carried out with honesty and openness, this could provide the clarity needed to move beyond accusations and counter accusations.
But both sides must remember: accountability is strongest when pursued collectively, not fractured by personal rivalries. Liberia’s future depends on leaders who are firm yet measured, tough on compliance but careful to preserve investor confidence. Senator Twayen is right to demand accountability. The Committee is right to insist on constructive engagement. What the nation cannot afford is the spectacle of division—because in the end, it is the Liberian people who pay the price when their leaders fight each other instead of fighting for them.
