Monrovia – The Clar Hope Foundation, a charitable organization founded by former First Lady Clar Marie Weah, has formally petitioned Criminal Court “A” to quash a subpoena issued in connection with an investigation by the Assets Recovery and Property Retrieval Taskforce (AREPT).
By Gerald C. Koinyeneh, [email protected]
In a strongly worded filing, the Foundation described the subpoena as “unreasonable and oppressive,” arguing that the court lacks authority to compel disclosure of its financial records outside the framework of an active legal case.
“The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to conduct a stand-alone investigative exercise,” the Clar Hope Foundation stated. “The subpoena duces tecum issued herein seeks broad disclosure of financial and donor information without pleadings, claims, parties in litigation, or defined issues for adjudication. Such use of judicial process amounts to an impermissible fishing expedition, unsupported by statute or constitutional authority.”
This week, Criminal Court “A” ordered the Foundation to turn over all financial and administrative records related to the construction of its multi-purpose complex in Marshall, Margibi County—a development that intensifies the government probe into alleged corruption and possible misuse of public funds.
The Assets Recovery and Property Retrieval Taskforce (AREPT) is investigating the Clar Hope Foundation to determine whether public funds or illicit resources were improperly used in constructing the complex. The probe focuses on the sources of funding, proper documentation of donations and expenditures, and potential misuse of public assets. The investigation is part of a broader government effort to ensure accountability and recovery of public property. The Foundation, however, maintains that no formal legal case exists against it and argues that the court cannot compel records without a pending proceeding.
Resident Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie issued the subpoena duces tecum, compelling the Foundation’s management to appear in court on Friday, January 23, at 10:00 a.m., and to produce documents detailing sources of funding, donations, and expenditures connected to the project.
The subpoena was requested by AREPT, which is investigating whether public resources or illicit funds were used to construct the sprawling complex, situated on several acres of private property in Marshall, Margibi County.
According to the court writ, the subpoena is directed to the Foundation’s management, through General Manager Jackson P. Gbamie, his deputies, and all acting under his authority, to provide records of funds received from individuals and government institutions for the complex’s construction, a list of contributors, including donation amounts and documentation showing contributor details, including locations, telephone numbers, and addresses.
Foundation Argues “No Case, No Subpoena”
The Clar Hope Foundation contends that, under Liberian law, a subpoena—whether to compel testimony or document production—can only be issued in aid of an existing judicial proceeding. Its lawyers argued that no civil action, criminal charge, petition, or cause of action is currently pending against the Foundation before Criminal Court “A.”
“A court cannot exercise compulsory process in a vacuum,” the motion states. “Subpoenas are ancillary tools that presuppose a live case or controversy properly before the court.”
Citing Sections 14.1 and 14.2 of the Civil Procedure Law and Section 17.3 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the Foundation maintains that subpoenas may only issue within the context of a pending action and at the request of parties to that action—conditions absent here.
Constitutional Concerns
The motion further invokes Article 21(h) of the 1986 Liberian Constitution, which protects individuals and entities from being compelled to furnish evidence against themselves and guarantees the presumption of innocence.
The filing asserts that the subpoena duces tecum compels the Foundation to produce sensitive financial and donor records without any formal charge or adjudicatory proceeding, amounting to coerced evidence gathering and violating constitutional due process protections.
“The Constitution does not permit the State or its instrumentalities to use judicial power as an investigative shortcut absent jurisdiction and due process,” the filing argued.
Court Not an Investigative Body, Foundation Says
The Foundation stressed that Criminal Court “A” lacks authority to conduct a “stand-alone investigative exercise,” emphasizing that courts are adjudicatory, not inquisitorial, bodies.
The motion also describes the subpoena as overbroad, indefinite, and oppressive, lacking limitations on time, relevance, or nexus to any justiciable issue. It cites legal provisions allowing courts to quash subpoenas that are unreasonable or issued without legal basis.
Relief Sought
The Clar Hope Foundation is asking the court to quash the subpoena, discharge the Foundation from any obligation to appear or produce documents, and declare that compulsory judicial process may only issue upon the filing of a proper action before a court of competent jurisdiction.
The motion was filed by International Law Group, LLC, with attorneys Welma Blaye Sampson and Jonathan T. Massaquoi representing the Foundation.
Foundation Insists It Has Nothing to Hide
Through General Manager Jackson P. Gbamie, the Foundation stressed it has nothing to conceal, but objected to being compelled to participate in what it calls a “fishing expedition” untethered from lawful procedure or due process.
“Liberia is a country governed by laws, not conjecture, political maneuvers, or intimidation,” Gbarmie said. “Allowing state actors to issue sweeping investigative demands without jurisdiction or judicial oversight would set a dangerous precedent, one that could be used against any citizen or institution tomorrow.”
He added that the Foundation remains committed to its mission and ready to comply with any lawful, properly grounded process.
“To our donors, partners, beneficiaries, and the Liberian public: The Clar Hope Foundation remains steadfast in uplifting vulnerable children and communities. This legal step defends the legal environment that allows such work to exist. We stand firm, respect the law, and will continue to defend both our integrity and the principles upon which Liberia’s democracy rests.”
What happens next?
Legal analysts say Criminal Court “A,” through Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie, will first decide whether it has jurisdiction to issue the subpoena. The court may grant the motion and quash the subpoena, effectively halting the court-ordered demand for records; or deny the motion, allowing the subpoena to stand and ordering the Clar Hope Foundation to comply.
Possible Appeal
If either side is dissatisfied with the ruling, the Foundation could seek appellate review if the subpoena is upheld. The government/AREPT could appeal if the subpoena is quashed.
