By Vaye Abel Lepolu
MONROVIA – The Criminal Court “A” of the First Judicial Circuit was the scene of intense legal debate on Tuesday as it considered a challenge to a subpoena in a major asset recovery investigation involving the Clar Hope Foundation.
Presiding Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie oversaw the proceedings, which centered on a Motion to Quash a Writ of Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by the Clar Hope Foundation against the Republic of Liberia. The government’s Assets Recovery and Property Retrieval Taskforce (AREPT) issued the subpoena as part of its probe into alleged corruption, including the conversion of government assets and misuse of state resources.
Following the formal call to order, Judge Willie allotted 45 minutes to each side for arguments. Representing the Clar Hope Foundation, a legal team including Cllr. Jonathan Massaquoi and Cllr. M. Wilkins Wright urged the court to quash the subpoena. Their core argument hinged on jurisdiction and constitutional protection. They contended that the court lacks jurisdiction over the Foundation in this matter and that a subpoena duces tecum—a court order to produce documents—is legally directed at a third party, not an entity under investigation.
“The Clar Hope Foundation is a party of interest, not a disinterested third party,” the defense argued, citing Supreme Court precedent. They asserted that compelling the Foundation to produce evidence would violate constitutional safeguards against self-incrimination. The defense referenced several legal authorities, including the Civil Procedure Law, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2022, and the 1986 Constitution.
The government’s legal team, led by Cllr. Edwin K. Martin, representing AREPT, vigorously resisted the motion. They anchored their authority in Executive Orders No. 126 and 145, issued by President Joseph N. Boakai, which mandate the taskforce to investigate, trace, and recover allegedly converted public assets.
AREPT argued the subpoena was a lawful tool in a valid criminal investigation and not a “fishing expedition.” They emphasized that the requested documents were specific and relevant. Citing the Civil Procedure Law, government counsel argued that a petition for a subpoena is a “special proceeding” that does not require a pre-existing pending case to be valid.
To demonstrate precedent, the government informed the court that several other institutions, including the Building Material Center (BMC) and the Rural Renewable Energy Agency (RREA), had previously complied with similar AREPT-issued subpoenas.
After hearing exhaustive arguments from both sides, Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie declined to issue an immediate ruling. Instead, he announced the matter would be taken under advisement, with a judgment on the motion to be delivered at a later, unspecified date.
