Criminal Court “A” Upholds Asset Recovery Subpoena Clar Hope Foundation’s case 

3 Mins Read

ADNews-Monrovia, Liberia:  The legal battle between the Clar Hope Foundation and the government’s anti-corruption machinery has intensified after the First Judicial Circuit Criminal Court A denied a petition to quash a writ of subpoena duces-tecum filed by the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force (AREPT).

By Benjamin Quaye Johnson

In a ruling delivered Tuesday at the Temple of Justice, Resident Circuit Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie rejected the Foundation’s motion seeking to block the production of extensive financial and operational records demanded by the Task Force through the Ministry of Justice.

Judge Willie ruled that the subpoena was consistent with the government’s mandate to investigate and recover public assets allegedly misappropriated.

“No institution is exempt from lawful scrutiny,” Judge Willie declared from the bench. “Compliance with investigative processes, when conducted under the color of law, is not optional but obligatory.”

Court Orders Full Disclosure

The court ordered the Clar Hope Foundation to produce all requested documents — including financial records, operational reports, and project documentation — within ten days.

Judge Willie further warned that failure to comply could trigger legal consequences, including possible contempt proceedings.

The decision represents a significant victory for AREPT, which was established by the Government of Liberia to pursue asset recovery efforts in collaboration with the Justice Ministry.

In his ruling, Judge Willie emphasized that the Task Force’s authority to demand relevant documentation does not depend on the existence of a pending trial.

“The investigative powers granted to the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force are not suspended merely because no formal indictment has yet been filed,” the judge stated. “The law contemplates investigation as a precursor to prosecution.”

Foundation Cites Constitutional Concerns

In its petition to quash the writ, legal counsel for the Clar Hope Foundation argued that compelling the production of documents would violate the institution’s constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

The Foundation’s lawyers also contended that enforcing the subpoena without an active case before a court of competent jurisdiction contradicts Liberia’s Civil Procedure Law and Chapter 17 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

“Our position remains that the rights guaranteed under the Constitution cannot be circumvented under the guise of investigation,” said Cllr. Weaken Wright, head of the Foundation’s legal team. “We believe the court erred in its interpretation of both the procedural and constitutional safeguards.”

However, the court dismissed those arguments, holding that the subpoena process itself falls within the lawful framework of criminal investigation and does not automatically amount to compelled self-incrimination.

Appeal to Supreme Court Justice in Chambers

Following the ruling, Cllr. Wright announced that the Foundation will appeal to the Justice in Chambers of the Supreme Court of Liberia.

“We will seek immediate review by the Justice in Chambers,” Wright said. “This matter raises substantial constitutional questions that warrant the Supreme Court’s intervention.”

Under Liberian law, the Foundation has ten days to file its appeal.

Broader Implications

The case is shaping into another pivotal test of the government’s expanding asset recovery campaign and the limits of investigative authority in Liberia.

Legal observers say the outcome could define the scope of AREPT’s powers and clarify whether organizations under investigation can resist document production on constitutional grounds before charges are formally filed.

For now, Criminal Court “A” has sent a clear message: investigative compliance is mandatory and resistance may carry consequences. The next chapter will likely unfold before the Supreme Court’s Justice in Chambers, where the constitutional arguments are expected to receive fresh scrutiny.