The Minister of Territorial Administration – MINAT – has published a communiqué relative to the collection of funds from the public by political parties of the Opposition, and/or civil society organizations for humanitarian purposes in the wake of the havoc occasioned by the CORONAVIRUS pandemic. Opinions have been sharply divergent on the legality of MINAT subjecting such collections to the prior authority of MINAT. How right and/or wrong is MINAT?
It would appear that the appraisal of the blind approbation and hasty disapprobation has to be read against the prevailing political tension in the country, heightened by the past imperial condescending threats preferred by MINAT against the Opposition and the civil society. But while that may be politically correct, members of the legal profession must maintain a cool head, and appreciate the situation in the right legal perspectives.
To my mind, MINAT is right at law, in general terms, that calls for the collection and the collection of funds from the members of the public in the context is subject to the prior authority of MINAT. That is the law as it is!
But the question is who the members of the public are. Broadly speaking, members of the public would exclude those with no links to the call for the collection and the collection; friends and volunteers. Whereas the first two groups are easy to grasp, volunteers need some definition. These could be persons who share the purpose intended without being influenced by the call. Some such persons may even have been practising the purpose already.
As regards members of the group calling for funds, it is their absolute right at law to raise funds for the purpose of advancing/attaining the objectives of the group. It would seem immaterial that the group is a political party… That should lead us to argue that, if the call for funds in the instant situation was directed to members of the party or civil society organization, it would not amount to calling for funds from the members of the public. In such a case, MINAT would be wrong to impose the prior obtaining of the authority of MINAT.
It seems reasonable to hold that, once the call has not been made to members of the public, it would not amount to collecting funds from the members of the public where members of the public willingly contribute. Such contribution would be covered by the legal provision, permitting political parties and certain civil society organization to receive gifts and legacies (sic: from the public). But it might not be correct to contend that the right to collect such gifts and legacies entitles those associations to make direct calls for public funding. We feel that this does make good sense and sane judgment because gifts are not preceded by demands (calls) from the receivers.
Not to belabour the point, we wish to take the stance, by way of conclusion, that an association reserves the legal right to call for funds from its member in order to advance/attain its goals. Members of the public, not directly called upon so to do, can fund the association in the guise of gifts and legacies. The position remains the same in respect of a political party, which, after all, is an association with a special status.
But any direct call on members of the public to fund the projects of an association requires the prior authority of MINAT.
OUR SUBMISSION!
NO CHARGE!