Re-Opens Arguments in Gracious Ride Case.
Monrovia, Liberia – The Supreme Court of Liberia is in a difficult position as it considers if President Joseph Boakai’s Executive Order #126 is lawful. This is at the center of the legal dispute between the Government of Liberia and the commercial transportation business Gracious Ride.
President Joseph Nyuma Boakai established the office of asset recovery and property retrieval on March 6, 2024, by issuing Executive Order #126.
This measure was described by his administration as an attempt to bring back accountability, openness, and confidence to the government process.
The President instructed the Assets Recovery Task Force, which was established as an institution under the Minister of State for Special Services, to construct the legal framework required to reclaim assets that were unjustly obtained by current and previous government officials.
On Thursday, March 28, twenty-two days later, the court ordered the Task Force to stop making any more seizures until a conference on a Writ of Prohibition that the Management of Gracious Ride Incorporated had filed was held.
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 as to determine the matter, the Supreme Court has reopened argument to determine 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.
Leading lawyers Abraham Zayzay and Cllr. Michael Wilkins Wrights have led the company’s legal team in contesting the constitutionality of the Taskforce’s operations and the creation of its office. Requesting that the court rule that President Boakai’s executive order 126 is unconditional.
They claimed that the presidential order essentially usurps legislative authority and sought a solution to the basic question of separation of powers. 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 coordinate 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.
Additionally, Article 20(a) covers fundamental rights, with due process and property rights being particularly covered. It guards against the willful deprivation of property without following the required legal procedures.
Cllr. Wright is arguing in this case that: The Asset Recovery Task Force violates separation of powers (Article 3) by taking on powers that belong to the Legislature; therefore, the taskforce’s formation should adhere to the correct legislative process (Article 89), just like other autonomous commissions; and the seizure of vehicles without due process is a violation of property rights guaranteed by Article 20(c).
One of their main points is that the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) are two examples of current governmental organizations that currently have the legal authority to carry out similar responsibilities.
Wrights furthered argues that creating a parallel organization through executive order undermines the constitutional framework and established institutional authorities.
Edwin Kla Martin, the leader of the government’s defense, offers an alternative view of the president’s authority. Article 5(c) of the 1986 Constitution, which gives the president administrative authority as head of state, serves as the foundation for Martin’s position. But throughout the hearings, the government’s stance was sharply questioned.
The Task Force’s operations raised practical concerns beyond the constitutional questions. The Taskforce’s chairman, Cllr. Martin, also contended that the Gracious Ride legal team had not specifically and clearly stated the constitutional clauses that the president’s executive order 126 violated.
He asserted that the president is empowered to make executive orders as he sees fit, as stipulated in article 5(c) of the 1986 constitution. Cllr. Martin went on to say that the president has not broken any constitutional requirements, contrary to what the Gracious Ride legal team had claimed.
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 maintained that the Ministry of State for Presidential Affairs’ Assets Recovery Taskforce was put up to support the work of other anti-graph organizations.
According to the government, these steps were required to examine possibly stolen government properties and confirm vehicle documentation. 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.
Legal professionals and interested parties await the Supreme Court’s decision, which might alter Liberia’s constitutional framework’s divisions between legislative and executive power.
In addition to having an immediate impact on the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force’s activities, the judgment may also establish significant guidelines for future presidential acts within the nation’s governance framework.
Reported by: G Bennie Bravo Johnson I
