The Supreme Court of Liberia is set to determine the constitutional legitimacy of President Joseph Boakai’s Executive Order #126, which established the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force. The case, brought before the full bench, has sparked a broader debate over executive authority’s boundaries and constitutional provisions’ sanctity.
The dispute arose after the Task Force conducted a controversial seizure of vehicles belonging to Gracious Ride, a commercial transportation company, in March 2024. Represented by former Associate Justice Cllr. Michael Wilkins Wright and attorney Abraham Zayzay, the company has challenged the executive order’s legality, arguing it violates Liberia’s 1986 Constitution.
Cllr. Wright argued that the executive order encroaches on legislative powers and undermines constitutional safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of property. He cited Articles 3, 89, 20, and 34 of the Constitution, emphasizing the separation of powers, the legislative role in establishing autonomous commissions, and the due process protections afforded to property owners.
The defense further contended that Liberia’s existing anti-corruption agencies, including the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), already have the statutory mandate to conduct asset recovery and investigate misappropriation of public property. Wright asserted that the creation of the Task Force through executive action bypassed the Legislature and disrupted the equilibrium between the branches of government.
Cllr. Edwin Kla Martin, representing the Task Force, defended the executive order as a necessary and constitutional measure under Article 5(c) of the Constitution, which grants the president authority to issue directives in the national interest. He argued that the Task Force’s establishment was a targeted response to corruption and the unlawful appropriation of state assets. Martin added that the Task Force operates under the Ministry of State for Presidential Affairs and collaborates with existing anti-corruption institutions.
Martin rejected claims of overreach, describing the legal challenges as lacking substantive grounds. He stressed that the seizures were carried out to verify vehicle ownership and investigate possible theft of government property, maintaining that all actions were within the scope of the executive order.
The case has drawn significant attention from constitutional scholars and governance experts, who view it as a test case for executive authority in Liberia. A ruling favoring the government could broaden the president’s powers to establish enforcement mechanisms, potentially bypassing legislative oversight unilaterally. Conversely, a decision supporting Gracious Ride’s position could reaffirm the legislative branch’s role in creating autonomous commissions and reinforce constitutional checks on executive actions.
The Court’s impending decision is expected to have far-reaching implications, influencing not only the balance of power between Liberia’s Executive and legislative branches but also setting a precedent for governance and accountability frameworks in the country. As deliberations continue, the nation waits with bated breath for a ruling that could shape the trajectory of Liberia’s constitutional democracy.
