Part F of CAMA, In reaction to the article in the link above, OUR IMMEDIATE THINKING:


While we must guide against the abuse of this section of the law (Part F of CAMA), a regulator should have the powers to suspend while investigations on gross misconduct are ongoing. These are regulatory best practices.
See: and


For example the case of rape in a Church or Nonprofit. The ideal thing would have been for the Board of the organisation to step in, suspend the pastor then investigate. Where this has not happened, the regulator would step in and take necessary steps to address the situation part of which will be to suspend at first, investigate and reinstate where possible.


In our immediate thinking, you cannot be a judge in your own case especially when complaints of gross misconducts are brought against you. That section of the law was clear on what grounds the suspension can happen. The section quoted also noted that this cannot be done without the approval of the Minister.


With nonprofits activities coming under public scrutiny and demand for transparency and accountability. We think this section of the law is an important milestone for addressing misconduct in our sector and addressing concerns by external stakeholders including the National Assembly.


We must all work with the Corporate Affairs Commission to ensure that regulations emanating from the law captures a) how investigations will be carried out, b) issues that can be investigated by the Commission and examples/typology of cases that fall under gross-misconduct, c) proportionality and appropriateness of sanctions and penalty, d) appeal processes including how as a sector we prevent abuse of such clauses through regulatory performance frameworks and oversight.