By Karamoh Kabba
The PPRC fine against the APC over Zainab Sheriff’s remarks at the Party’s mammoth rally raises serious legal questions about regulatory authority, individual liability, and constitutional rights.
Sheriff has publicly rejected the fine, warning she will sue both the APC and the PPRC if the Party pays on her behalf. This creates a potential clash between party responsibility and personal accountability.¹²³
The legal basis of the fine against Sheriff seems to hang on a thin thread. The authority of the PPRC is clear:
The Political Parties Registration Commission (PPRC) is empowered under Sierra Leone’s Political Parties Act to regulate party conduct, including sanctioning parties for disorderly or provocative behaviour at rallies.
But targeting an individual for comments made at an open mammoth meeting staged by the APC may cast doubt on the intentions of the PPRC.
It is dangerous to approach another election after two allegedly rigged polls by the ruling government under the authority of a perceived bias regulatory authority.
Indeed, political pundits argued that the 2018 election was influenced by Western powers wary of the APC’s social democratic leanings and economic ties to China. A majority of voters believe that the 2023 election was outrightly stolen, an act that unsettled the SLPP’s geopolitical backers—regime changers wrongly referred to as “moral guarantors.”
On the grounds for the fine, the PPRC cited profane and provocative remarks allegedly made by Zainab Sheriff during the APC mammoth rally at Attouga Mini Stadium. This seems erroneously deemed a violation of political party regulations, especially since the remarks came from a member who was not among the APC’s official voices at the occasion.
In essence, such action could open a can of worms, rendering the PPRC’s regulatory authority cumbersome. If the APC pays up, the precedent will invite questions about whether the PPRC will levy fines on any “Jack and Jill” at the governing party functions.
This speaks directly to party vs. individual responsibility. The fine was imposed on the APC as the organizing body of the rally. Sheriff insists she alone should be held accountable for her words, not the party, and has threatened legal action if the APC pays the fine on her behalf.
The implication raises the question: can political parties be vicariously liable for statements made by individuals at their events, especially when those individuals are not official spokespersons?
There are also constitutional and human rights concerns. Freedom of expression may have been compromised. And indeed, Sheriff argues that the PPRC’s fine infringes on her right to free speech, since her remarks were made in a political context.
She insists that any allegation against her should be tested in court, not decided unilaterally by the PPRC. And if judicial review determines that the PPRC exceeded its mandate, political parties may be emboldened to challenge its authority, rendering it as a toothless bulldog.
The APC may refuse to pay because of reputational liability. Paying the fine could be seen as admitting wrongdoing, potentially weakening the party’s political standing and intimidating its rank and file, who may want to take a bold stance against election theft this time around—the crux of the matter in 2028.
Sheriff’s threat to sue the APC if it pays creates tension between the party and its members. Accepting liability for individual remarks could expose the APC to future sanctions whenever members speak controversially at rallies, leaving supporters timid and lacking confidence in party leadership.
The strategic consideration for the APC is to contest the fine legally to avoid setting a precedent of liability for individual speech that may demoralize its grassroots supporters.
This path would also inadvertently serve Sheriff’s cause by pursuing judicial review to clarify the scope of PPRC’s authority and protect her personal freedom of expression. In doing so, the APC would ensure that PPRC sanctions are legally defensible and proportionate, avoiding accusations of bias, weaponization, or overreach.
In summary, the fine sits at the intersection of regulatory authority, party liability, and constitutional rights. If litigated, it could reshape how Sierra Leonean law treats political speech at rallies and the accountability of parties for their members’ statements.
But the Party must not delay to pay the fine levied against its secretary general since that had been the only clear outcome of the mammoth meeting.
—
References
- Zainab Sheriff Threatens Legal Action Against APC Over Fine Payment – MyEpicOnline
- BREAKING: I Will Sue APC If They Pay The Fine & Also Sue PPRC – YouTube
- Zainab Sheriff Proposes Court Action Against PPRC – Sierraloaded
