OPINION

The Waltham Forest Islamic Association (WFIA)

Charity No.270323

In the light of the order dated 3rd February 2009 Case No: 704253 Sealing
No: N1630/09 the commission had been conducted section 8 inquiry by
on his own motion under the charities Act 1993, as amended by Charities
Act 2006 since February 2009. However, this order had never been
challenged in any forum.
Therefore, the charity commission had completed his enquiry without
any legal hurdle. Thus, on 28 June 2010 the charity commission
published the inquiry report in relation to the WFIA
This decision of the inquiry can be challenged in the Charities Tribunal
within 42 days of its publication on the following grounds;

1. To establish that the appellant has a case of locus standi.

2. The directions/ orders or any decision of the charity commission

in light of inquiry, must fall under Schedule 1C Table A of the

Charities Act 1993, as amended by the Charities Act 2006 and as
such may be appealed to the Tribunal.

However, the Schedule 1C does not provide any right of appeal against
the outcome of any inquiry under section 8 of the Act. Furthermore, the
facts, findings or other conclusions reached by the inquiry do not itself
constitute a decision. Therefore, the findings of the inquiry could not be
challenged in the Tribunal. This principle was confirmed by the Tribunal
in the case of African Aids Action v The Charity Commission for England
and Wales [2010].

1
The Appellant can challenge the finding of this inquiry to the High Court
by applying for permission to have a Judicial Review (JR) within three
months on the following grounds;
1. Illegality
2. Procedural impropriety
3. Irrationality and proportionality (such as Human Rights Act 1998).

However, the current material before me does not constitute any of the
above stated for the purpose of JR.

Furthermore, in relation to the legality of the trustees that had came into
power in light of the Charity Commission orders dated 19th March 2008
Case No:648423, sealing No:N96/08 were legal until the midnight of the
day that the result of the election was declared.
Thus, they were legal trustees, unless another order had been issued by
the commission replacing them in a same weight and same capacity.
Therefore, their all operations as the charity trustee were legal until the
election.

However, the letter of the commission dated 6th November 2008 was not
a decision in the light of the Tribunal Judgement as held in the case No
CA/2009/0004 dated 9th February 2010. The Tribunal held that “the letter
and Action Plan and the requirements in the Action Plan that individual
actions be undertaken do not constitute a decision” Thus, the letter dated
6th November 2008 merely demonstrate the future intention of the
commission to appoint an interim committee to hold fresh election.

The letter dated 6th November 2008 lead to the Commission to make an
order dated 8th May 2009 where by they appoint the election committee

2
for the charity. In addition, in the same letter Commission did not
mention that the order dated 19th March 2009 had been revoked.
The wording of the charity Commission order dated 8th May 2009 Case
703499 Sealing No: N183/09 is very clear that this election committee
can act as trustees however; the Commission failed to mention that all
other orders that had been made before the 8th May 2009 in relation to the
WFIA trustees were revoked. Therefore, it is arguable

In the light of order dated 8th May 2009 the Interim trusses were bound to
act in accordance with the terms set out in the governing document (The
Charity constitution). However, in my opinion the interim Trustees failed
to hold the election in accordance with the governing document. They did
not have the power to alter, amend or add any provision in the WFIA
constitution in relation to vote, election or eligibility etc. Thus, the
election validity can be challenge on this ground.

In addition, in the democratic process acting as interim trustees or

presiding officers by the police was legal or not, furthermore to what
extent the police officers were independent especially when they were
performed his duel functions and duty to maintain the peace/ order and
preside to hold the election. Therefore, the fairness and impartiality of the
election is questionable. It is an arguable case on this point. While the
election petition is pending before the court therefore I am unable to give
my firm opinion regarding the election case.