James T. Brooks
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, MONROVIA — The Clar Hope Foundation has launched a formal legal challenge against Criminal Court ‘A’, petitioning Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie to throw out a subpoena that compels the organization to surrender its construction and funding records. The foundation argues that the court is overstepping its authority, asserting that no criminal case or legal action currently exists to justify such a demand.
The dispute centers on a Writ of Subpoena Duces Tecum issued at the request of the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force, led by Cllr. Edwin Kla Martin. The Task Force, established under Executive Order No. 145 to trace and recover “stolen and suspicious assets,” has placed the development of the foundation under intense scrutiny. However, in a motion to quash filed through General Manager Jackson P. Gbamie, the foundation contends the writ is a legal nullity.
A Question of Jurisdiction
The crux of the foundation’s argument is that a court cannot exercise “compulsory process in a vacuum.” Defense lawyers maintain that under Liberian law, a subpoena—whether for testimony or documents—is an ancillary tool that must support an active, pending judicial proceeding. Because there is no civil action, criminal indictment, or formal petition currently filed against the foundation in Criminal Court ‘A’, the organization argues the court lacks the subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce the order.
To bolster this claim, the motion cites Section 14.1 and 14.2 of the Civil Procedure Law, which defines a subpoena as a command to appear for an “action” already brought before a court. Furthermore, the foundation points to Section 17.3 of the Criminal Procedure Law, noting that subpoenas are reserved for requests made by a “prosecuting attorney or the defendant”—language that presupposes a live criminal case is already on the docket.
Constitutional and Due Process Concerns
Beyond procedural technicalities, the Clar Hope Foundation raised a significant constitutional objection. Citing Article 21(h) of the 1986 Constitution, the motion argues that the subpoena violates the right against self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence.
The foundation characterizes the Task Force’s request as an “impermissible fishing expedition” and an “investigative shortcut.” By demanding broad access to donor lists, telephone numbers, addresses, and financial contributions without a formal charge, the foundation claims the government is using judicial power to coerce evidence-gathering outside the bounds of due process.
“Unreasonable and Oppressive”
The subpoena specifically ordered management to appear on Friday, January 23, 2026, with exhaustive records detailing every cent received from individuals and government institutions, alongside the personal contact information of all donors.
Lawyers for the foundation described the demand as “unreasonable, oppressive, and overbroad,” noting it lacks any limitation regarding time or relevance. This legal pushback follows a similar move by the court in November 2025, when it subpoenaed the Building Materials Center (BMC) for contracts and vouchers related to the foundation’s construction projects.
The Clar Hope Foundation is now asking the court to discharge it from all obligations to appear, arguing that the rule of law requires a proper action to be filed before the state can reach into the private records of an organization.
Comments are closed.