Published: January 21, 2026
Temple of Justice, Monrovia — Clar Hope Foundation has asked Criminal Court ‘A’ to throw out a subpoena compelling it to release records tied to its construction and funding, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction because no criminal case or legal action is pending against the foundation.
In a motion to quash filed before Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie, lawyers for the foundation—through its General Manager Jackson P. Gbamie—are seeking to nullify the Writ of Subpoena Duces Tecum issued at the request of the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force, headed by Cllr. Edwin Kla Martin.
The Task Force, created to trace and recover “stolen and suspicious assets,” has placed the construction and development of Clar Hope Foundation under investigation and petitioned the court to compel the production of documents it considers critical to its inquiry. But the foundation argues that the subpoena was improperly issued and should be set aside.
The Foundation argues that there is no civil action, criminal proceeding, petition, or cause of action currently pending in Criminal Court ‘A’ against the Foundation, and therefore the court cannot lawfully compel it to appear or produce records.
The Foundation contends 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. It maintains that a court cannot exercise compulsory process in a vacuum, nor compel attendance or production of documents absent a live case or controversy properly before it.
To support its argument, Clar Hope Foundation cites Liberia’s Civil Procedure Law, particularly Section 14.1, which defines a subpoena as process commanding a person to attend, testify, or produce documents in an action at a specified time and place. It also relies on Section 14.2, which authorizes issuance of subpoenas only by the court where the action is brought.
The motion further points to Section 17.3 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which permits subpoenas “at the request of either the prosecuting attorney or the defendant,” and says this language clearly presupposes the existence of a criminal action already before the court. Where no action exists, the foundation argues, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to issue or enforce a subpoena and any such writ is null and void from the start.
Beyond the procedural question, the foundation also raised a constitutional objection, citing Article 21(h) of the 1986 Constitution, which provides that no person shall be compelled to furnish testimony or evidence against himself and that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
According to the motion, the subpoena duces tecum compels the foundation to produce broad financial, donor, and institutional records in the absence of any charge, claim, or adjudicatory proceeding, which the Foundation claims constitutes coerced evidence-gathering. The foundation argues that compulsory production outside the context of a lawful judicial proceeding violates due process and amounts to the use of judicial power as an investigative shortcut.
Clar Hope Foundation also contends that Criminal Court ‘A’ is not vested with investigative or inquisitorial powers outside the framework of an actual case. It argues that the subpoena seeks expansive disclosure without pleadings, formal parties in litigation, or clearly defined issues for adjudication, and that the foundation characterizes this as an impermissible fishing expedition unsupported by statute or constitutional authority.
Even assuming the court had jurisdiction, the Foundation argues the writ remains legally defective because it is unreasonable, oppressive, and overbroad. The subpoena, it argues, seeks extensive records without limitation as to time, relevance, or any clear nexus to a justiciable issue. The motion cites provisions of both the Criminal Procedure Law and the Civil Procedure Law that authorize a court to quash a subpoena where it is unreasonable or issued without legal basis.
The subpoena at the heart of the dispute ordered Clar Hope Foundation’s management, through Gbamie and those acting under his authority at Marshall Road in Margibi County, to appear before Criminal Court ‘A’ on Friday, January 23, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. It also commanded the foundation to produce records, including funds received from individuals and government institutions for the foundation’s construction, as well as details on donors and the amounts contributed, including their locations, telephone numbers, and addresses.
The court action forms part of a push by the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force, which, in its petition, said it is operating under Executive Order No. 145 signed by President Joseph N. Boakai Sr. on March 5, 2025, re-announcing the Task Force and continuing its mandate to identify, trace, and investigate suspicious assets.
Criminal Court ‘A’ previously issued a similar subpoena to the Building Materials Center (BMC) in November 2025, ordering its management to provide construction contracts, payment vouchers and checks, receipts, bills of quantity, and other documents linked to the Clar Hope Foundation project.
Clar Hope Foundation is now asking Judge Willie to quash and set aside the subpoena for lack of jurisdiction, discharge the foundation from any obligation to appear or produce documents, and declare that compulsory process may only issue upon the filing and pendency of a proper action before a court of competent jurisdiction. It is also requesting any additional relief the court deems just, legal, and equitable.
Discussion about this post