The Gracious Ride through its legal representation headed by Cllr. Michael Wilkins Wrights and Abraham Zayzay have questioned the legal authority of President Joseph Boakai’s Executive Order #126 in which their commercial vehicles were illegally seized by the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force in March, 2024.
The Supreme Court has heard and reserved arguments into the case involving Gracious Ride versus the Assets Recovery Team wherein the former declared the President Executive Order #126 as unconstitutional.
During their arguments, petitioner Gracious Ride said, it is affected by the actions of the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Task Force by seizing their vehicles in the street without any legal authority.
Cllr. Wright informed the full bench of the Supreme Court’s contention were whether or not President Boakai has the authority to dedicate legislative defined role to Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Taskforce.
Cllr. Wrights said President Boakai violated the authority of the Legislature in Article 3 and Article 89 and 5© of the Liberian Constitution.
He said, even though he is not challenging the authority of the President for issuing his Executive Order but, the establishment and conduct of the Asset Recovery and Retrieval Taskforce.
“There are parallel institutions like the LACC, FIU” and others are legal entities enacted by the Legislature responsible to do similar job as the Asset Recovery and Retrieval task force Cllr. Wrights added.
Cllr. Wrights, with reliance on Article 34(I) of the Liberian Constitution said the establishment of Executive Order #126 is a violation of his client’s rights by stopping their vehicles in the street and by putting out its passengers without court order.
He argued that it is the duty of the Legislature to promulgate laws and if President Boakai wants the Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Taskforce to be legitimate, let it pass through the Legislature or amend the LACC Act.
“Creating an Executive Order cannot overturn another existing laws” Cllr. Wrights added.
Cllr. Wrights therefore prayed the court to declare the President’s Executive Order unconstitutional because it is the Legislature who has the authority to create laws in the Republic of Liberia.
As for the respondent, the Government of Liberia represented by Edwin Kla Martin, argued that the petitioner does not have the standing or capacity to sue with reliance on the Chapter 11 sub-section 11(e) of the Civil Procedure Law of Liberia.
His contention was whether or not, the establishment of the Executive Order #126 violated the rights of the petitioner as being alleged and he argued that at no time the President through his Executive order violated the rights of the petition because issuing an executive order power is squarely vested in the President.
He also quoted that Article 50 of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia states that, “The Executive Power of the Republic shall be vested in the President who shall be Head of State, Head of Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Liberia. The President shall be elected by universal adult suffrage of registered voters in the Republic and shall hold office for a term of six years commencing at noon on the third working Monday in January of the year immediately following the elections. No person shall serve as President for more than two terms.”
While arguing, Justice Gbeisay asked him whether it was necessary for him to act like police officer by seizing those vehicles without any legal grounds, Cllr. Martin responded that those vehicles were seized in order for them to produce their titled documents because they are under obligation to investigate suspicious or stolen properties belonging to government.
Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh asked whether there were any notice, radio and publication done prior to the seizing of Gracious Ride vehicles in the street but Martin admitted that they partially erred in that direction.
He also relied on Article 3 and 5© of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia to defend their actions.
He therefore prayed for the high court to rule in their favor because Executive Order rights are exclusively vested in the President.
It can be recalled in March of this year, Gracious Ride filed a petition for a Writ of Prohibition against the Executive Branch of government to prohibit their actions from seizing their vehicles illegally.
