By James Lahai
Montserrado County District #3 Representative Sumo K. Mulbah has dismissed a recent report released by the civil society organization NAYMOTE Partners for Democratic Development, describing it as “imaginary” and lacking credible evidence.
The report, which forms part of NAYMOTE’s Legislative Constituency Break Monitoring initiative, assessed lawmakers’ activities and engagement with constituents during the legislative recess.
Among other findings, the report identified several legislators, including Rep. Mulbah, as having limited constituency engagement during the break period.
Speaking to journalists, Rep. Mulbah strongly rejected the findings and questioned the methodology used by NAYMOTE to gather information across Liberia’s 73 electoral districts.
According to him, the report relied heavily on what he termed “digital data connection research” rather than direct interaction with residents and stakeholders in the various constituencies.
“It is not necessary to have all 73 districts report something. That can’t be possible,” Mulbah said. “This report is imaginary and lacks evidence. You cannot sit behind a computer and tell me what is happening in my district without speaking to my people.”
The District #3 Representative maintained that he remained actively engaged with constituents throughout the legislative recess and challenged NAYMOTE to provide verifiable evidence supporting its conclusions.
He further called on civil society organizations to adopt what he described as proper engagement-based research methods by conducting field visits and consulting directly with community members before publishing reports on lawmakers’ performance.
NAYMOTE’s Constituency Break Monitoring project seeks to promote accountability and transparency by evaluating how legislators utilize their recess periods to interact with constituents, inspect development projects, and hold community consultations.
The organization has stated that its reports are compiled using a combination of field monitors, surveys, and public records.
However, the organization has consistently maintained that its findings are evidence-based and intended to strengthen legislative accountability and public participation in governance.
The disagreement highlights ongoing debates between some lawmakers and civil society groups regarding the most effective methods for measuring and reporting legislative performance to the public.
