The_Open_Door_deel1

-215-
Th is second part of the conclusion of the country's Attorney
General has general importance as the language used in this
Section 6 of the 1960 Agreement with LAMCO did not differ
fundamentally from that used in concession agreements with other
foreign investors. In practice it meant that private owners of
land, once their lands had been included in a concession area
granted to a foreign investor lost title to these lands and could
only claim indemnification, whereas the foreign investor could
claim these lands without even having the obligation to actually
develop the area (as happened with the case in question: LAMCO
never used the Kitoma Range area).
The Attorney-General's opinion in respect of foreign investors
with a legal document entitling them to a certain area having
priority over the (legal) rights of Liberian citizens to the same
area seems to be contradictory to two aspects of the Constitution
of the Republic. First, Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution
reads that the right to own real property in the Republic of
Liberia is inherent in each and every citizen. The major question
which emerges here is: is there in existence any limitation to
this right? Comparison with the Constitutional rights of freedom
of expression or of assembly shows that a limitation of these
rights follows from the State's obligation to protect the rights
of others. Likewise it can be reasoned in respect of the right to
own real property. But in the case of the rights to the Kitoma
Range one cannot uphold the idea that the decision to limit the
right to own real estate, exercised by Togba in respect of the
Kitoma Range, was justified by the need to protect LAMCO's rights
in this respect. The Company was entitled already to the Nimba
Mountains ore deposits, among others, and experience had shown
how difficult it had been for the Company to find funds for the
development of the Nimba ore deposits only. Thus it could be
expected that development of the Kitoma Range by LAMCO was not
going to take place in the foreseeable future. Furthermore,
according to the Constitution of the Republic the rights of
citizens of the Republic are inalienable as is the right to the
possession of property. (31).
Secondly, Article V Section 12 and 13 respectively of the
Constitution read that only Liberian citizens can own real
property and that "none but Negroes or persons of Negro descent
shall be eligible to citizenship in this Republic" (32),
By subordinating the Constitutional rights of Liberian citizens
to the - constitutionally - discriminated position of Caucasian
and other non-black foreigners the spirit of the Constitution in
this respect is violated, whatever one's opinion may be on this
characteristic of the Liberian Constitution.
Of course, the main issue was that the rights granted to LAMCO
had been too broad and too many. As a result of these, and because
LAMCO had obtained its concession and the accompanying
rights prior to the date Togba had concluded an agreement with
the Government, LAMCO's rights prevailed. On August 11, 1965
President Tubman confirmed the Opinion of the Attorney General
as the decision of the Government. Togba was granted compensation
for his property in the Kitoma Range which was expropriated -