The Real Flawed Gambit: Tweah’s Fiscal Policies Leave Liberia Worse Off

By Julius T. Jaesen, II

Tweah’s metaphor of a gambit in chess is an intriguing rhetorical device, but it ultimately collapses under the weight of its misapplication and inherent flaws. A gambit, as he describes, involves the deliberate sacrifice of a significant piece to force an opponent into an inescapable loss. However, this presumes the sacrificer has a flawless strategy, ensuring that the sacrifice yields a decisive advantage. Tweah’s attempt to liken Minister Augustine Kpehe Ngafuan’s fiscal policies to a flawed gambit is not only inaccurate but also a self-defeating argument that inadvertently exposes the failures of his tenure as Minister of Finance and Development Planning under the CDC-led administration.

Ngafuan’s reforms, particularly the announcement that no civil servant would earn below $150, are not sacrifices or gambles—they’re deliberate and corrective measures aimed at restoring fairness and equity within Liberia’s civil service. Unlike a gambit, where a piece is lost to gain strategic leverage, Ngafuan’s actions aren’t about trading one’s value for another; they’re about addressing the harm caused by Tweah’s disastrous harmonisation policy. That policy, under the guise of streamlining government expenditures, reduced salaries for tens of thousands of civil servants, plunging them into economic hardship while disproportionately benefiting a small elite whose salaries were inflated. If there were a gambit in play, it was during Tweah’s tenure, and it failed spectacularly.

In chess, the effectiveness of a gambit hinges on the ability of the sacrificer to anticipate and counter every possible response. However, Tweah’s harmonisation policy demonstrated no such foresight. By reducing the income of civil servants to unsustainable levels, it created widespread discontent and undermined public trust in the government. This was not a calculated sacrifice for a greater good but a reckless policy that left ordinary Liberians worse off. Moreover, it violated the principles of fairness enshrined in the Decent Work Act of 2015, exposing its lack of strategic planning or ethical grounding. Tweah’s gambit, if we accept his metaphor, was deeply flawed and left Liberia in a weaker position than before.

Ngafuan’s actions, in contrast, reflect the qualities of a leader who understands the importance of equity and adherence to the rule of law. By ensuring no civil servant earns below the legally mandated minimum wage, Ngafuan corrected the imbalances created by the CDC administration’s policies. This is not a gambit; it is a strategic and principled approach that positions Liberia for long-term stability and progress. It is the equivalent of a chess player refusing to engage in reckless sacrifices and instead building a strong, cohesive position on the board. The tangible benefits of Ngafuan’s policies—will restore confidence among civil servants, economic relief for struggling families, and compliance with labor laws—demonstrating that this is a winning strategy, not a gamble.

If we are to fully embrace the chess metaphor, it is Tweah who orchestrated a flawed gambit. He sacrificed the livelihoods of thousands of civil servants without a coherent plan to recoup the loss or secure a future advantage. The CDC’s harmonisation policy, touted as a solution to fiscal challenges, achieved nothing but economic inequity and public disillusionment. In a true gambit, the sacrificer must control the board, forcing their opponent into checkmate regardless of their response. Yet Tweah’s policies failed on every front—causing hardship for ordinary Liberians, alienating the civil service, and ultimately contributing to the CDC’s shameful electoral defeat. If Tweah seeks to find a flawed gambit, he need look no further than the policies of Tweah himself.

Tweah’s argument further falters because it ignores the will and judgment of the Liberian people, who have effectively checkmated the CDC and its failed policies through the ballot box. The recent elections demonstrated a decisive rejection of the very policies Tweah defends. Liberians have seen through the rhetoric and recognised the tangible harm caused by Tweah’s tenure. In contrast, Ngafuan’s policies are resonating with the public, offering a clear vision for equity and economic justice. This rejection of Tweah’s approach and embrace of Ngafuan’s reforms show that the real flaw lies in Tweah’s metaphorical gambit.

Lastly, Tweah’s critique inadvertently exposes the incompetence and shortsightedness of CDC’s leadership. A successful gambit requires a flawless plan, but Tweah’s policies were riddled with flaws—violating labor laws, deepening income disparities, and failing to deliver any strategic benefit. Meanwhile, Ngafuan’s approach demonstrates the foresight and fairness necessary for effective governance. By correcting the harm caused by Tweah’s policies, Ngafuan has positioned Liberia for recovery and growth, embodying the very qualities of leadership that Tweah lacked.