The constitutionality of President Joseph Boakai's Executive Order #126 is under fire. The order established an Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force to retrieve stolen government assets. However, Gracious Ride Transport Service, a company caught in the crosshairs of the Task Force's actions, is challenging the order's legality before the Supreme Court.
The crux of the case revolves around whether Executive Order #126 undermines the authority of the Liberian Legislature. Gracious Ride argues that the Taskforce duplicates the functions of existing institutions, like the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), which were established by the Legislature. They believe the Executive Order could impede the work of these entities and violate the separation of powers.
The Taskforce and the Ministry of Justice counter that Gracious Ride's petition lacks merit and fails to specify which constitutional provisions were violated by the Executive Order. They maintain the President has the authority to take such actions.
The Supreme Court's decision will set a precedent for the balance of power between the President and the Legislature, impacting presidential authority, the rule of law, and Liberia's fight against corruption.
Like both legislative statutes and the regulations promulgated by the executive branch, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if an executive order lacks support by statute or the Constitution.
The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. The 1986 Constitution of Liberia gives presidents broad executive and enforcement authority to use at their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch.
The ability to make such orders is also based on expressed or implied Acts of the Legislature that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).
The question remains whether justices of the Supreme Court as part of their judicial review authority declare President Joseph Boakai's executive order #126, establishing the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force unconstitutional.
The task force is established to identify and retrieve stolen government assets and assets acquired through acts of corruption.
Immediately, when the executive order was issued, the Taskforce began to confiscate vehicles they believed belonged to past government officials, particularly those who were serving in the George Weah administration.
One such case involving the seizure of vehicles was the Gracious Ride Transport Service believed to be owned by Madam Finda Bundoo, former Presidential Chief of Protocol under the George Weah administration.
The constitutionality of Executive Order (EO) #126, issued by President Joseph Boakai to establish the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Taskforce, is under scrutiny as Gracious Ride Transport Service contests the legality of the Taskforce before the Supreme Court.
Gracious Ride's main argument revolves around the potential undermining of parallel institutions such as the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), which were established by the Legislature to perform similar functions as the Taskforce.
They assert that the Executive Order may impede the functioning of these existing entities responsible for investigating theft, money laundering, corruption, and economic crimes. The pending judgment before the Supreme Court is based on Gracious Ride's challenge to the President's authority to create an Asset Recovery Team.
The petition for a writ of prohibition, initially denied by Justice in Chamber Yusuf D. Kaba, is now being reviewed by the full bench of the Supreme Court.
The Taskforce and the Ministry of Justice have urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it fails to cite constitutional provisions that justify the President's issuance of Executive Order No. 126.
Gracious Ride, on the other hand, contends that the establishment and operations of the taskforce contravene constitutional statutes, arguing that their rights were violated by the task force's actions, including the seizure of vehicles without a court order.
In counterargument, Gracious had said that President Boakai violated the authority of the Legislature in Article Three of the Liberian Constitution.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
They argued that President Boakai violated Article 89 and 5(C)of the Liberian Constitution.
Gracious noted that even though they are not challenging the authority of the President for issuing his Executive Order, the establishment and conduct of the Asset Recovery and Retrieval task force.
"There are parallel institutions like the LACC, FIU" and others are legal entities enacted by the Legislature responsible to do a similar job as the Asset Recovery and Retrieval task force," they added.
Gracious also argued by establishing Executive Order #126, their rights were being violated," by stopping their vehicles in the street by putting off passengers without a court order.
The outcome of this case will have significant implications for presidential authority, the rule of law, and the fight against corruption in Liberia. The Supreme Court's decision will establish a precedent regarding the balance of powers and the constitutionality of executive actions in the country.
