The Clar Hope Foundation has taken note of the public statement issued by the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Taskforce (AREPT) concerning the Academy matter and the Foundation’s ongoing court action.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Clar Hope Foundation is not challenging the mandate of the State to investigate public assets, nor is it asserting immunity from lawful scrutiny. The Foundation has never claimed to be above the law and does not oppose accountability, transparency, or lawful investigation.
What the Foundation challenges and what is now squarely before the Honorable Court is the legality of the Subpoena Duces Tecum issued at the instance of AREPT. The Foundation’s Motion to Quash is grounded solely in law, premised on the fact that the subpoena was procedurally defective, ultra vires, and issued in violation of established legal process.
It bears emphasis that AREPT itself invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to procure evidence through this Subpoena Duces Tecum, in a manner contrary to constitutional due-process safeguards. The Foundation’s objection therefore arises not from resistance to inquiry, but from the use of judicial process to obtain evidence through an unlawful and overbroad instrument, a practice the Constitution does not permit.
Accountability cannot exist outside the law, and transparency cannot be achieved through unconstitutional means. Evidence sought through an illegal subpoena cannot be legitimized by public interest rhetoric, nor can constitutional violations be cured by generalized assertions of impartiality.
While AREPT asserts that its work is evidence-based, impartial, and respectful of the judiciary, those assurances stand in tension with the decision to seek a Subpoena Duces Tecum exceeding statutory authority and constitutional limits. Respect for the judiciary requires strict compliance with lawful process, not public assurances.
The Foundation further notes that references to a “broader review” involving multiple institutions do not validate an unlawful subpoena. Illegality is not neutralized by scope, repetition, or claims of non-selectivity.
The Clar Hope Foundation has consistently maintained that any investigation conducted in accordance with due process and statutory authority will receive its full cooperation. What the Foundation cannot accept—and what the Constitution does not permit is the normalization of extra-legal or constitutionally defective subpoenas under the guise of asset recovery.
This matter is now properly before the Honorable Court. The Foundation therefore aligns with AREPT on one principle alone: the judicial process must be allowed to take its course. That process will determine whether the Subpoena Duces Tecum issued and the evidence sought thereunder comported with the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Liberia.
Until then, the Clar Hope Foundation urges restraint, fidelity to due process, and respect for the foundational principle that the rule of law restrains both the governed and those who govern. Seeking Accountability without legality is arbitrariness. Transparency without due process is coercion.
THE RULE OF LAW MUST BEGIN WITH THOSE WHO ENFORCE IT.
Signed: Jackson Paye Gbamie
General Manager
Clar Hope Foundation
