MONROVIA – The Criminal Court A at the Temple of Justice has denied a motion filed by the Clar Hope Foundation seeking to quash a subpoena issued by the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force, setting the stage for a legal and political confrontation over constitutional rights and state power.
In a ruling delivered on Tuesday, February 25, 2026, Resident Circuit Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie rejected the Foundation’s attempt to block the Task Force from obtaining documents tied to its operations, finances, and project activities. The court made clear that investigative mandates backed by law cannot be brushed aside by claims of institutional independence.
Judge Willie held that the subpoena was consistent with the Task Force’s statutory authority to investigate and retrieve public assets allegedly misappropriated. According to the ruling, “no institution is exempt from lawful scrutiny,” emphasizing that compliance with investigative processes is not optional but required under Liberian law.
The court ordered the Clar Hope Foundation to “produce all documents, records, and materials requested” without delay. It further warned that failure to comply could trigger legal consequences, including possible contempt proceedings. The message from the bench was unmistakable compliance first, arguments later.
The Foundation had argued that the subpoena was overly broad and infringed upon its operational autonomy. Its lawyers maintained that the request amounted to an intrusion into its internal affairs. But the court disagreed, finding that the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force, established to pursue asset recovery on behalf of the Government of Liberia, has the authority to demand relevant documentation within the scope of its investigations.
As the case remains active, the Task Force is reportedly intensifying its probe into matters concerning the Foundation’s activities and financing. What began as a legal dispute over documentation is fast evolving into a larger debate about constitutional interpretation and the limits of executive investigative power.
That debate exploded into the political arena when Margibi County Senator Nathaniel F. McGill publicly condemned the ruling. Writing on his official Facebook page, McGill described the decision as “deeply troubling and, in my view, a travesty of justice.” He argued that compelling the Foundation to produce documents effectively forces it to provide evidence against itself.
McGill anchored his criticism in Article 21 of the Liberian Constitution, asserting that “no person shall be deprived of rights or property without due process of law, and no person shall be compelled to produce evidence against himself or herself.” He stressed that these provisions are constitutional guarantees, not suggestions, and warned against what he views as a dangerous precedent.
In his statement, McGill further declared that “the burden rests on the State” to indict and prove allegations beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of competent jurisdiction. He cautioned that courts “are not instruments of political convenience” and insisted that any judge who circumvents constitutional protections for political considerations “must be held accountable.” His rhetoric was forceful Liberia, he said, “is not a banana republic.”
The Clar Hope Foundation has maintained that it is open to cooperating with any lawful investigation but insists that cooperation must not come at the expense of constitutional protections. Meanwhile, its legal team has appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court of Liberia, seeking reversal of Judge Willie’s decision.
