MONROVIA – The Clar Hope Foundation has formally challenged the legality of a subpoena issued by the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Taskforce (AREPT), arguing that while accountability is necessary, it must be pursued strictly within the bounds of the law. In a strongly worded press statement released hours after AREPT’s public announcement, the Foundation made clear that the dispute now before the court is not about resisting investigation, but about defending constitutional due process.
Signed by Jackson Paye Gbamie, General Manager of the Clar Hope Foundation, the statement emphasizes that the Foundation does not oppose the State’s mandate to investigate public assets. “For the avoidance of doubt,” the Foundation stated, “the Clar Hope Foundation is not challenging the mandate of the State to investigate public assets, nor is it asserting immunity from lawful scrutiny.” It stressed that it has never claimed to be above the law or shielded from accountability.
At the heart of the legal dispute is a Subpoena Duces Tecum issued at the instance of AREPT, which the Foundation has asked the court to quash. According to the Foundation, the subpoena is procedurally defective, ultra vires, and issued in violation of established legal process. The Motion to Quash, it explained, is grounded solely in law and constitutional safeguards, not in an attempt to frustrate investigation.
The Foundation further argued that AREPT itself invoked the jurisdiction of the court to procure evidence through a mechanism that allegedly exceeded statutory authority. In doing so, it said, AREPT relied on an “unlawful and overbroad instrument” that contravenes constitutional due-process protections. The objection, therefore, arises from the manner in which judicial power was used, not from hostility to transparency.
“Accountability cannot exist outside the law, and transparency cannot be achieved through unconstitutional means,” the Foundation asserted. It warned that evidence sought through an illegal subpoena cannot be legitimized by public interest rhetoric, nor can constitutional violations be cured by broad claims of impartiality or good intentions.
The statement also took issue with AREPT’s public assurances that its work is evidence-based, impartial, and respectful of the judiciary. While acknowledging those claims, the Foundation noted that such assurances “stand in tension” with the decision to seek a subpoena allegedly exceeding legal limits. Respect for the judiciary, it argued, requires strict compliance with lawful procedures, not post-facto explanations.
Addressing AREPT’s reference to a broader review involving multiple institutions, the Foundation maintained that scope does not cure illegality. According to the statement, an unlawful subpoena does not become lawful simply because it affects more than one entity or is framed as non-selective. “Illegality is not neutralized by scope, repetition, or claims of non-selectivity,” it said.
The Clar Hope Foundation reiterated its consistent position that it will fully cooperate with any investigation conducted in accordance with due process and statutory authority. What it cannot accept, the statement stressed, is the normalization of extra-legal or constitutionally defective subpoenas under the banner of asset recovery.
With the matter now before the Honorable Court, the Foundation said it aligns with AREPT on one principle only: that the judicial process must be allowed to take its course. The court, it noted, will ultimately determine whether the subpoena issued and the evidence sought comply with the Constitution and laws of Liberia.
Until the court rules, the Foundation urged restraint from all parties and called for fidelity to due process and respect for the rule of law. It cautioned that public commentary should not preempt judicial determination or undermine constitutional safeguards.
In a pointed conclusion, the Foundation framed the issue as one of principle rather than personality or politics. “Seeking accountability without legality is arbitrariness. Transparency without due process is coercion,” the statement declared, adding that “the rule of law must begin with those who enforce it.”
