Why We Can’t Monitor Spendings By Political Parties – INEC

Ahead of 2015 general elections, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) appears helpless in effectively monitoring and proferring sanctions against political parties and candidates who flaunt the maximum elections spending as stipulated in the Electoral Act.

Section 91 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) stipulates that:
The maximum election expenses to be incurred by a candidate at a Presidential election shall be one billion naira (1,000,000,000.00); for governorship, two hundred million naira (N200,000,000); for Senatorial and House of Assembly, forty million and twenty million naira respectively.

But INEC told LEADERSHIP exclusively that it could not monitor such spendings in view of the fact that there were no paper trails and the activities of most political parties were nocturnal.

As such, the commission lamented that it had not been able to get any defaulters  of the Electoral Act.
Speaking on behalf of INEC, the deputy director of public affairs, Nick Dazang, explained that while the Political Party Monitoring and Liason (PPML) was saddled with monitoring candidates’ spending, the electoral commission had setup a forensic unit for the purpose of monitoring such spendings.

He said “our Political Party Monitoring and Liaison (PPML) department usually monitors the expenses of candidates. In Nigeria where there is no paper trail and most party activities are nocturnal, it is possible that we may not have tracked the expenses accurately.

“To strengthen our PPML department, the Commission has set up a special forensic Unit and it is building the capacity of staff in this unit to do a more thorough and vigorous job.”

The commission further replied some critics of its recently released election timetable, who had advocated the polls be held on same day instead of the staggered elections being adopted.

Dazang explained that as long as the Electoral Act clearly stipulated that elections be staggered, INEC must abide by it.

Even though he admitted that it would be cost effective to hold all elections in one day, he further cited logistics challenges, especially the size of the country as a huge challenge.

He stated that such logistics problems would lead to delays in release of results which could fuel mistrust and violence.

He said “for all elections to take place in one day, the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) must be further amended. The staggered nature of our elections is informed by the provisions of the Electoral Act. However, even if the elections are to take place in one day (in the event of an amendment to the Electoral Act) the Commission will contend with logistics challenges, especially given the size of the country and some of its difficult terrains. Also, the implication is that the results may not be declared early, thereby leading to mistrust and possibly violence.

“Certainly holding elections in one day will bring down the cost of elections. But will stakeholders, especially the political parties and the media, support a situation where election results are declared late by the Commission?”

- Leadership

loading...