MONROVIA – The Clar Hope Foundation has formally asked Criminal Court “A” to quash a writ of subpoena duces tecum issued against it, arguing that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and legal authority to compel the production of documents in the absence of a pending action. The motion, filed through the Foundation’s legal counsel, challenges the subpoena obtained by the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force (AREPT).
The subpoena was issued following a petition by AREPT seeking court authorization to compel the management of the Clar Hope Foundation to produce documents related to the construction of a multi-purpose complex in Marshall, Margibi County. The facility is owned by former First Lady Clar M. Weah and is at the center of an ongoing investigation into alleged corruption and misuse of public funds.
In its motion, the Foundation contends that no civil action, criminal proceeding, petition, or cause of action is currently pending before Criminal Court “A” against it. As such, the Foundation argues that the court is being asked to exercise compulsory judicial power in a legal vacuum, contrary to established Liberian law and constitutional principles.
The motion emphasizes that under Liberian law, a subpoena whether ad testificandum or duces tecum is an ancillary process that must be issued in aid of a pending judicial proceeding. According to the Foundation, a court cannot compel attendance or the production of documents without a live case or controversy properly before it.
Citing Section 14.1 of the Civil Procedure Law, the Foundation notes that a subpoena is defined as a process commanding a person to attend, testify, or produce documents “in an action” at a specified time and place. The legal team further argues that Section 14.2 authorizes the issuance of subpoenas only by the court in which an action has been formally brought.
The motion also relies on Section 17.3 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which permits subpoenas only at the request of a prosecuting attorney or a defendant, a provision the Foundation says clearly presupposes the existence of a criminal case already before the court. In the absence of such a case, the Foundation maintains that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the subpoena is null and void from its inception.
Beyond statutory arguments, the Foundation raises constitutional concerns, citing Article 21(h) of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia. That provision guarantees that no person shall be compelled to furnish testimony or evidence against himself and that all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
According to the motion, the subpoena compels the production of sensitive financial, donor, and institutional records without any charge, claim, or adjudicatory proceeding. The Foundation argues that compulsory document production under such circumstances amounts to coerced evidence gathering and violates constitutional protections.
The legal challenge is being led by Cllr. Jonathan Massaquoi and Atty. Walma Blaye Sampson, who argue that the Constitution does not permit the State or its agencies to use the courts as investigative shortcuts absent due process and proper jurisdiction.
In its concluding prayer, the Foundation asks the court to quash and set aside the writ of subpoena duces tecum, discharge the Foundation from any obligation to appear or produce documents, and declare that compulsory process may issue only upon the filing and pendency of a proper action before a court of competent jurisdiction.
The subpoena in question, issued on Tuesday, January 20, 2026, ordered the Clar Hope Foundation through its General Manager, Jackson P. Gbamie, his deputies, and all persons acting under his authority to appear before Criminal Court “A” on Friday, January 23, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. and to produce all documents related to the construction of the Marshall complex.
AREPT is seeking records detailing funds received from individuals, government institutions, and other donors, including the amounts contributed toward the construction of the facility. The court is now expected to consider the Foundation’s motion when the parties appear, a decision that could significantly shape the legal boundaries of asset recovery investigations in Liberia.
