Monrovia — Liberians across the country have erupted in criticism following Deputy Information Minister Daniel Sando's long awaited explanation concerning the controversial construction project in Foya District, Lofa County, which for months had been widely described as a presidential villa linked to President Joseph Boakai.
The criticism intensified after Deputy Minister Sando on Tuesday posted a detailed clarification on Facebook, coming months after a series of conflicting and confusing statements by senior government officials, including Sando himself.
For nearly a year, the structure rising in Foya, President Boakai's hometown, remained shrouded in secrecy. Reports circulating within and outside the community described the project as a 10 million United States dollar presidential villa, allegedly built under heavy security with restricted access, foreign workers, and little to no official information provided to the public.
During this extended period, Liberians say they never received a single, coherent explanation from the government. Instead, they were confronted with denials, half truths, and contradictory statements that steadily eroded public confidence in the administration's commitment to transparency.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
Deputy Minister Sando was among the first officials to publicly address the controversy when early reports linked the project to the Mano River Union. At the time, he categorically dismissed those claims, stating that information suggesting MRU funding was misleading and untrue. He said his checks with MRU sources in Freetown and a review of the organization's website showed no such project.
However, his response failed to answer the most basic questions on the minds of Liberians, including what exactly was being built, who authorized it, and how it was being financed. That silence created a vacuum that fueled speculation and suspicion across the country.
Confusion deepened when Presidential Press Secretary Kula Fofana later stated that the structure was a government owned facility intended for the Office of the President and future presidents of Liberia, not a private residence for President Boakai. As she explained at the time, the facility was built for the Office of the President and not as the personal property of the President. While her statement attempted to distinguish public interest from private benefit, it failed to address concerns about cost, procurement procedures, and why such a significant project appeared unknown or unclear to other senior government officials.
Public disbelief intensified when Minister of State for Presidential Affairs Samuel Stevequah appeared before the Senate during his confirmation hearing and openly declared that he had no knowledge of any presidential villa being constructed in Lofa County. For many Liberians, this admission was alarming. It suggested either a serious breakdown in coordination within the highest levels of government or a deliberate attempt by officials to distance themselves from a politically sensitive project.
Public Works Minister Roland Giddings further compounded public concern when he appeared on a radio program and declined to provide details about the project. Citing security implications, he insisted that the Executive Mansion should address the issue and also claimed he did not know the details of the construction. Coming from the minister responsible for public infrastructure, this response reinforced public suspicion rather than offering reassurance.
It was against this backdrop of prolonged silence, contradictions, and official evasions that Deputy Minister Sando resurfaced months later with what he described as a "comprehensive explanation". He identified the project as the Mano River Union Center for Regional Peace and Development, a Government of Liberia initiative intended to host regional and international dialogues on peace, security, governance, and economic integration.
According to Deputy Minister Sando, the facility includes a five hundred seat conference hall, nine accommodation units, sits on seven acres of land in Foya, and carries an estimated cost of six point one million United States dollars. He stated that the project is funded through a combination of national, regional, global, and private contributions.
Deputy Minister Sando justified the earlier lack of disclosure by citing security concerns, arguing that revealing details about a facility meant to host presidents, diplomats, and other high level dignitaries could pose risks. However, many Liberians rejected that explanation, insisting that security concerns do not justify withholding basic information about ownership, funding, and purpose, particularly for a project of such national importance.
The timing of Deputy Minister Sando's clarification has become a central point of contention. His explanation came only after months of investigative reporting, eyewitness accounts from residents of Foya, and mounting public pressure that made continued silence untenable. To many citizens, the explanation felt less like genuine transparency and more like damage control.
Public anger has also been sharpened by memories of the Unity Party's stance while in opposition. At the time, the party harshly criticized former President George Weah and the Congress of Democratic Change, accusing Weah of using government money to build condominiums. The Unity Party consistently preached transparency, accountability, and fiscal discipline, arguing that Liberians had a right to know how public resources were being used. That history has made the current controversy particularly painful for critics, who now accuse the Boakai administration of practicing the very secrecy it once condemned.
Liberians responding to Deputy Minister Sando's Facebook post did not mince words. Gee Death wrote, "Imagine, it took the government months to put this lie together. Thank God Liberians are gullible people so they can believe anything."
Zubborn Hubbard expressed disbelief, saying, "A government project named after a regional body, individual, businesses, national, regional, and global entities? Ay Liberia mehn. This statement is a mess from the Deputy Minister and it only shows that none of them in government know the actual facts behind this project."
Charles T. Kamara demanded further clarification, stating, "If you want us to believe in this cover up story, let the government further explain to us on the following. How much is Liberia contributing to the project? Did Liberia's contributions meet legislative approval and or PPCC procedures? What is the contribution sum of other nations in the region? I see this as a toe nails and
Yahoo boys justification coming from a corrupt regime."
Samuel S. Weah described the situation as humiliating, writing, "My people hoo, this is too shameful and disgraceful for the government to come out to the public and say tabataa after pressure upon pressure. The government will surely and surely give account to the Liberians. Every long rope has an end."
Victor Dickson accused the government of misplaced priorities, saying, "What a fake and a broad day unforgettable lies. So this government is so concerned about spending the Liberian people's hard earned taxpayers' money to construct headquarters for the Mano River Union rather than spending it on the Liberian people who are faced with extreme poverty in the country. Nobody is stupid here. This strategy to dilute clear water is too elementary to push on the Liberian people. Where are those financial contribution records from those international partners and stakeholders, and how much did the Liberian government contribute? Criminal groups of gangs have turned our country into a gangster country."
Larry Gono questioned the financial process behind the project, saying, "When you say it is a government project, where did the money come from? Who appropriated the money, the Legislature or the President? If it was appropriated by the Legislature, why can't we find any budget line within the budget to demand the construction of that ten million condominiums? You lie, Mr. Boakai. But anyway, we will still see it come 2029. Nobody is stupid here."
Roland Jackson highlighted what he described as hypocrisy and inconsistency, stating, "After running with this project as a private 10 million dollar property to the President, now you're the same person and network posting here telling the world it's a government project. I just like how the government makes you and your half land CDCian brothers and sisters look stupid right now to the Liberian people. We're waiting for the next topic about this project again."
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Marcus Carr linked the controversy to past issues, saying, "Then why couldn't the Public Works Minister, the Information Ministers, and others answer the questions when the public was hungry for this clarity? You people are still lying. It's the same way you guys were lying about the two hundred and eighty five yellow machines coming from South Africa, Boakai's friend. Now it's coming from China. You guys love lying."
Lewis Smith questioned the decision making process behind the project, writing, "Why proceed with a project without the acknowledgment of the Liberian people and only begin to provide explanations when issues arise? Why was that particular location selected in the first place? Unbelievable."
Beyond public outrage, the controversy has raised serious legal and procedural questions. Despite widespread reports and visible activity at the site, the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning has not clearly reflected the project in national budget documents, and there is no public record showing that the Public Procurement and Concessions Commission approved a competitive bidding process as required under Liberian law for projects valued above two hundred thousand United States dollars.
If the project is a government initiative, bypassing these requirements raises serious ethical and legal concerns. If it is privately funded, citizens argue they still have a right to know who the financiers are and why such secrecy surrounded the project.
Supporters of the administration, particularly in Lofa County, have attempted to defend the project, arguing that it represents long overdue development for a historically neglected region and could stimulate local growth. Yet even among supporters, there is growing acknowledgment that secrecy and delayed explanations undermine trust in government institutions.
