Questioning Asset Recovery Legality

This latest development comes as the Supreme Court has yet to deliver its verdict in the case of Gracious Ride vs. Government of Liberia. Represented by Cllrs. Michael Wilkins Wright and Abraham Zayzay, Gracious Ride has challenged the legality of President Joseph Boakai’s Executive Order #126, under which their commercial vehicles were seized by the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force in March of this year.

The Supreme Court of Liberia heard arguments in the case on Thursday, July 4, and subsequently reserved its decision. During the proceedings, Gracious Ride argued the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force’s actions, including the seizure of their vehicles, were conducted without legal authority. The petitioner questioned whether President Boakai had the authority to delegate a legislatively defined role to the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force and whether issuing Executive Order #126 violated the Constitution of Liberia.

Arguing before the full bench of the Supreme Court, Cllr. Wright asserted President Boakai had overstepped his authority, violating Article 3 of the Liberian Constitution, which defines the separation of powers. He further cited Articles 89 and 5(C) of the Constitution, arguing that while the President has the authority to issue executive orders, the establishment and conduct of the Asset Recovery and Retrieval Task Force were unconstitutional.

“There are parallel institutions like the LACC (Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission) and the FIU (Financial Intelligence Unit), which are legally established entities responsible for similar tasks as the Asset Recovery and Retrieval Task Force,” Cllr. Wright noted.

He also referenced Article 34(I) of the Constitution, stating the creation of Executive Order #126 violated their rights by allowing the seizure of their vehicles without a court order. Cllr. Wright argued that it is the duty of the Legislature to enact laws, and if President Boakai wanted the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force to be legitimate, the proper course would have been to pass it through the Legislature or amend the LACC Act.

“An Executive Order cannot override an existing law,” Cllr. Wright concluded, urging the Court to declare the Executive Order unconstitutional on the grounds that only the Legislature has the authority to create laws in Liberia.

In response, the Executive Branch, represented by Edwin Kla Martin, argued Gracious Ride lacked the standing or capacity to sue. Cllr. Martin maintained that the President, through his Executive Order, did not violate the petitioner’s rights, asserting that the power to issue executive orders is vested solely in the President. He cited Article 50 of the 1986 Constitution, which states that the Executive Power of the Republic shall be vested in the President, who is also the Head of State, Head of Government, and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Liberia.

According to Cllr. Martin, the President acted within his constitutional authority, and there was no infringement on the rights of Gracious Ride.