The Political Parties Registration Commission PPRC is charged with the responsibility to supervise the affairs of all political parties in the country.

The All People’s Congress APC in recent times has been in dispute with different members of the party.

In June 2021, the court set up an interim body to run the affairs of the party until it conduct its first national delegate election.

Alfred Peter Conteh chairman of the interim committee has been in recent times accused of flouting court orders and the PPRC regulations.

Related News

In that regard, the PPRC has written a letter to caution the chairman Alfred Peter Conteh.

“I write in response to your letter of the 14th November 2022, captioned as above and served on the Commission and your conduct in the Commission’s Conference room of even reference. Though your said letter is not addressed to anybody, its contents relate to the Commission and are reflective of your misconduct in our Conference room. It was also served on us by you after misconducting yourself.

You seem to be under the delusion that, the Commission is under obligation to endorse your decisions without questions. This borders around derision and frightening ignorance of the Commission’s Statutory mandate. We are established by Section 34(1) of the 1991 Constitution and inter alia charged with the responsibility to supervise and monitor the activities of Political Parties (see Section 6(1) of the Political Parties Act No.3 of 2002). By Sections 34(5) of the Constitution and 3 of the Political Parties Act 2002, in the exercise of our functions, we are not subject to the directions of any PERSON or Authority.

Your attempt at dictating to the Commission, as to how it conducts its business, is an affront to its authority and thus unacceptable. We are a State Institution with a defined mandate and that must be respected by you and all that we deal with.

A Political Party can only enquire into our conduct through the Courts, not by frivolous accusations and profanities on social media platforms. The latter only exhibits the peddlers and their handlers’ insecurities, backgrounds, and upbringing.

The contents of your letter and conduct aforesaid, are not only disrespectful of the Commission but also amount to an interference with its work. Interfering with the Commission’s Officials and its business, for your edification, constitutes an Offence under Section 10 of the Political Parties Act No 3 of 2002.
We shall not hesitate to invoke that if such brazen conduct persists.

All of the decisions you have taken as Chairman of the ITGC, have been challenged by other members of that Body. You hold the view that the Judgement of the 28th April 2022 confers powers on you, to act in the manner you have acted, whilst the other members of the Committee are contending that you are devoid of such powers.

Until His Lordship that created your outfit in his judgment, defines your powers, both views held by you and the other members of the Committee are mere conjectures. It is inexplicable therefore that, you expect the Commission to swallow, hook line, and sinker, your view. The Commission is an independent institution and we are nobody’s poodle.

You seem to hold the pretensions that, your decisions are sacrosanct and binding on all and sundry, as a matter of course. The such mentality in our view is at variance with what you professed to stand for.

As an oversight Body, we have advisedly chosen to stay in the middle, until His Lordship interprets his Judgement. We took that position in the realization of the fact that, acting in line with either of the two views aforementioned, could be tantamount to an endorsement of that view and thus an interpretation of His Lordship’s Judgement, an act that is ultra vires our Statutory brief.

You and your surrogates have consistently basked on our being a Party to the Action and in your estimation, that rids us of our mandate. We are therefore at a loss that, you are now seeking the endorsement of your actions, from this Commission you and your cohorts, have so berated as insignificant.

It is instructive to note also that, like you, our being a Party to the Action, entitles us to give our interpretation of the Judgement. We have unequivocal views on all of the decisions, actions, and contentions in the Committee.

We have however restrained ourselves, from expressly proffering such views by way of our interpretation, out of respect for the diverse efforts being employed to bring you together.

Proffering our interpretation, therefore, may only further compound the problem, as it may conflict with either of the two views on the issue. That would certainly not be helpful to those efforts, geared toward a resolution of the impasse. We have therefore held our peace in the face of all the audacity and tirade from you and your band of Supporters, in furtherance of the general interest of the Party”.