By: G Bennie Bravo Johnson I
At the heart of this legal confrontation between a commercial transportation company, Gracious Ride, and the Government of Liberia, the Supreme Court of Liberia finds itself seated in the seat of a conundrum to determine the legality of President Joseph Boakai’s Executive Order #126.
On March 6, 2024, President Joseph Nyuma Boakai issued Executive Order #126, establishing the office of asset recovery and property retrieval. An act his administration termed as an effort to restore credibility, accountability, and transparency in the governance process.
During the establishment of the Assets Recovery Task Force, an office under the Minister of State for Special Services, the President mandated the team to put into place the necessary legal framework for the recovery of assets wrongfully acquired by current and former government officials.
Twenty-two days later, on Thursday, March 28, the court halted the Task Force from carrying out any further seizures until a pending conference on a Writ of Prohibition filed by the Management of Gracious Ride Incorporated was heard.
The company’s vehicles, predominantly taxis, were seized by the Assets Recovery Task Force on grounds that they were acquired through fraudulent means by a former top government official, specifically pointing fingers at former President George Weah’s Chief of Protocol, Madam Finda Bundoo.
Months after listening to arguments from both lawyers to determine the matter, the Supreme Court has reopened the argument to determine the constitutionality of establishing the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force, established under the executive order, which conducted widespread seizures of commercial vehicles in March 2024.
The company’s legal team, spearheaded by prominent attorneys Cllr. Michael Wilkins Wrights and Abraham Zayzay, have challenged the constitutional validity of the establishment of the office of the Taskforce and its operations. The company prays the court to declare Executive Order 126 issued by President Boakai unconditional.
They argue that the fundamental question of separation of powers needs to be answered, asserting that the executive order effectively usurps legislative authority. According to Cllr. Wrights, the executive order violates Articles 3 and 89, as well as Article 34 of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia.
He said Article 3 establishes the foundation of government and separation of powers in Liberia. It provides that: “Liberia is a unitary sovereign state divided into counties for administrative purposes. The form of government is Republican with three separate coordinated branches: the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary. Consistent with the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances, no person holding office in one of these branches shall hold office in or exercise any of the powers assigned to either of the other two branches.”
Furthermore, Article 89 deals with autonomous commissions and agencies, stating that: “The following Autonomous Public Commissions are hereby established: Civil Service Commission, Elections Commission and General Auditing Commission.” It further specifies that the Legislature shall enact laws for the governance of these commissions and create new ones as may be needed.
Also, Article 20(a) addresses fundamental rights and specifically deals with due process and property rights. It protects against arbitrary deprivation of property without due process of law.
In the context of this case, Cllr. Wright argues that: “The Asset Recovery Task Force violates the separation of powers (Article 3) by assuming powers ascribed to the Legislature, that is, the creation of such a task force should follow a proper legislative process (Article 89), similar to other autonomous commissions and the seizure of vehicles without due process violates property rights protected under Article 20(c).”
A key point in their argument emphasizes that existing governmental bodies, including the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) and Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), already possess the legislative mandate to perform similar functions.
Wrights further argues that creating a parallel organization through executive order undermines the constitutional framework and established institutional authorities.
The government’s defense, led by Edwin Kla Martin, presents a contrasting interpretation of presidential powers.
Martin grounds his argument in Article 5 (c) of the 1986 Constitution, which vests executive power in the president as head of state. However, the government’s position faced pointed questioning during the proceedings.
The Task Force’s operations raised practical concerns beyond the constitutional questions.
Cllr. Martin, who is the head of the Taskforce further argued that Gracious Ride’s legal team has failed to state in clear terms and particularity the constitutional provisions that the president’s executive order 126 violent.
According to him, the president has the right granted to him under article 5 (c ) of the 1986 constitution to issue an executive order when he deems it necessary.
Cllr. Martin further argued that the president has violated no provisions of the constitution as asserted by the Gracious Ride legal team.
The practice of stopping vehicles in transit and forcing passengers to disembark has disrupted public transportation services and raised questions about due process.
Cllr. Martin argued that the Assets Recovery Taskforce was established under the Ministry of State for Presidential Affairs to buttress the efforts of other anti-graph institutions.
The government maintains these actions were necessary to verify vehicle documentation and investigate potentially stolen government property.
The case has broader implications for governmental power and executive authority in Liberia.
If President Boakai’s executive order is upheld, it could potentially establish a precedent for expanded executive powers in creating enforcement bodies parallel to existing legislative-authorized institutions.
Conversely, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Gracious Ride, it would reinforce the principle that such enforcement bodies must be established through legislative processes, potentially requiring the administration to seek congressional approval for similar initiatives in the future.
As the Supreme Court deliberates, legal experts and stakeholders await a ruling that could reshape the boundaries between executive authority and legislative prerogative in Liberia’s constitutional framework.
The decision will not only affect the immediate operations of the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force but could also set important precedents for future executive actions in the country’s governance structure.
