Topic: The CDC Eviction and the Law on Writs of Possession
Many have asked about the legality of the recent eviction involving the CDC. Let me explain in plain terms:
A writ of possession is only meant to put the rightful landowner back in possession of his/her property.
Court officers can remove people and their belongings, even break doors if necessary.
But they cannot destroy houses or buildings.
Once judgment is given, all structures belong to the new owner. It is the owner not the court or the police who decides whether to keep or demolish them.
So the main question is: who brought in the yellow machines that tore down the buildings?
a. If it was the owner lawful.
b. If it was the court officers or police unlawful, because they went beyond their legal
authority.
Execution of judgment is about repossession, not destruction.
Q & A
Q1: What is a writ of possession?
A. It’s the court order that returns land to the rightful owner.
Q2: Can court officers destroy houses during eviction?
A. No. They only remove people and belongings.
Q3: Who decides what happens to buildings on the land?
A. Only the lawful owner.
Q4: Any precedent in Liberia?
A. Yes. In the Togba Estate v. Goodridge case, the Estate got back the land, but the house still
stands—because only the Estate had the right to decide.
Q5: What about the CDC eviction?
A. The issue is whether the yellow machines were hired by the owner (lawful) or by
officers/police (unlawful).
Law vs. Politics
This is not a political issue. Execution of judgments is a legal matter, guided by our Civil
Procedure Law and precedents.
Conclusion
The CDC eviction teaches us a simple but powerful lesson:
Execution of judgment must follow the law—nothing more, nothing less.
