-Clar Hope Foundation Responds to AREPT
MONROVIA – The Clar Hope Foundation has issued a sharp rebuke to the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Taskforce (AREPT), framing its legal challenge not as a refusal to cooperate but as a defense of constitutional due process against an “unlawful” government subpoena.
The statement comes in response to a recent public declaration by AREPT concerning its investigation into assets linked to City of Hope Academy and the Foundation’s subsequent court action.
The Foundation forcefully denied any assertion that it is resisting accountability. “The Clar Hope Foundation is not challenging the mandate of the State to investigate public assets, nor is it asserting immunity from lawful scrutiny,” the release stated. “The Foundation has never claimed to be above the law and does not oppose accountability, transparency, or lawful investigation.”
Instead, the organization argues that the core issue is the legality of the *Subpoena Duces Tecum*—a court order to produce documents—obtained by AREPT. According to the Foundation, its Motion to Quash the subpoena is based solely on the claim that the order was “procedurally defective, ultra vires [beyond its legal power], and issued in violation of established legal process.”
In a pointed critique, the Foundation noted that AREPT itself sought judicial authority to issue the subpoena, but did so, it alleges, in a manner that bypasses constitutional safeguards.
“The Foundation’s objection therefore arises not from resistance to inquiry, but from the use of judicial process to obtain evidence through an unlawful and overbroad instrument, a practice the Constitution does not permit,” the statement reads.
The release centers on a fundamental principle: “Accountability cannot exist outside the law, and transparency cannot be achieved through unconstitutional means.” It argues that “evidence sought through an illegal subpoena cannot be legitimized by public interest rhetoric,” directly countering AREPT’s public justifications.
While acknowledging AREPT’s public assurances that its work is “evidence-based, impartial, and respectful of the judiciary,” the Foundation contends these statements “stand in tension” with the decision to seek a subpoena that allegedly exceeds statutory and constitutional limits.
“Respect for the judiciary requires strict compliance with lawful process, not public assurances,” the statement asserts. The Foundation also dismissed any suggestion that a “broader review” involving multiple institutions validates the specific subpoena against them. “Illegality is not neutralized by scope, repetition, or claims of non-selectivity,” it argued.
Reiterating its offer of full cooperation with any investigation conducted under proper legal authority, the Foundation drew a clear line. “What the Foundation cannot accept—and what the Constitution does not permit—is the normalization of extra-legal or constitutionally defective subpoenas under the guise of asset recovery.”
With the matter now before the courts, the Foundation stated its sole point of agreement with AREPT: “the judicial process must be allowed to take its course.”
The statement concludes with a final, emphatic warning: “The rule of law must begin with those who enforce it.”
Prior to Clar Hope Foundation statement over the weekend, the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Taskforce (AREPT) asserted in a press release that its investigation into the organization is part of a “broader review” of multiple institutions and is strictly focused on financial transparency and the potential conversion of public assets.
AREPT emphasized that the matter is now *sub judice*—under judicial consideration—and that it is legally restrained from commenting on the merits in public. “This limitation does not reflect hesitation or retreat, but rather demonstrates AREPT’s respect for the rule of law and the independence of the Judiciary,” the Taskforce stated.
While pledging full compliance with court processes, AREPT firmly defended its core mandate. “The Taskforce is not deterred in the execution of its lawful mandate and remains resolute in ensuring transparency and accountability in the management and use of public resources,” the release continued.
Addressing the heart of the investigation, AREPT clarified that the court-issued subpoena sought documents “questioning the conversion of Government of Liberia funds, donors’ funds channeled through the Government of Liberia, and donor information related to the Clar Hope Foundation and the City of Hope Academy.”
The agency was careful to note that the document request “does not constitute a determination of guilt, nor does it relate to the violation of any rights.” Instead, it framed the inquiry as “limited solely to issues of financial transparency, conversion of government assets, and compliance with applicable laws.”
AREPT also indicated that the case against the Foundation is not isolated. “The Clar Hope Foundation and City of Hope Academy matter forms part of a broader review involving multiple institutions similarly situated and is not an isolated or selective action,” the statement read. Reiterating that its investigations are “evidence-based, impartial, and non-political,” AREPT called on the public and officials to allow the court process to proceed without “undue politicization or speculation.”
