APC Membership Dues and the ITGC: A Legal View
By Emmanuel S Conteh
In the ongoing debate surrounding membership dues within the All People’s Congress (APC), much confusion has arisen regarding payments made during the period when the party’s executive structures were suspended. At the center of the matter is a receipt showing that a payment was made to Alfred Peter Conteh, who at the time was serving as Chairman of the Interim Transitional Governance Committee (ITGC).
The ITGC was not a self-appointed structure; it was legally constituted by a court order with the mandate to manage the affairs of the APC during a transitional period. Its duties included overseeing the party’s operations, ensuring continuity, and crucially, collecting membership dues on behalf of the party. Therefore, payments made to the ITGC during this time cannot be dismissed as irregular or invalid. They are, in effect, valid payments to the APC, since the ITGC represented the lawful authority of the party as recognized by the courts. This aligns both with the doctrine of necessity and the explicit instructions of the judiciary to preserve the party’s functionality.
Consequently, the payment in question should be regarded as fulfilling the financial obligations of members including Mr. Samuel Sam-Sumana to the APC. Arguments suggesting otherwise risk undermining the authority of the court and the principle of lawful continuity in governance, which was at the core of the ITGC’s existence.
It is also important to address a common misconception involving Section 41 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone (Act No. 6). Section 41 clearly outlines the qualifications for the Office of the President, but it does not prescribe the rules for how a political party selects its flagbearer. That responsibility lies within the internal constitution and regulations of the APC, provided such rules do not contravene the national constitution. Thus, while Section 41 is fundamental to determining eligibility for the presidency, it is irrelevant to the present issue of membership dues or compliance with internal party structures.
The real legal question, therefore, is not about presidential qualifications but about whether the party and its members respected the processes set out by its constitution and the directives of the court during the ITGC period. In this light, the payment to the ITGC remains valid and binding. Any genuine inquiry into the matter must focus on party compliance with its own constitution and the lawful authority of the court-appointed interim body.
The ITGC was a legally mandated body recognized by the court.
Payments made to it were legally valid and effectively payments to the APC.
Mr. Sam-Sumana’s membership obligations were met by such payments.
Section 41 of the national constitution is irrelevant to this matter since it addresses presidential qualifications, not party membership dues.
The dispute should center on respect for internal party rules and the lawful authority of the court, not misinterpretations of the national constitution.
