by Eze Onyekpere

TAN is in violation of Section 91 (9) of the Electoral Act which states that “No individual or other entity shall donate more than (N1,000,000) to any candidate”

Laws are made to guide human conduct. They are to be obeyed voluntarily or at the pain of punishment; hence, the positivist definition of law as the command of the sovereign backed by sanctions. One of law’s most reassuring qualities is that they are binding and should be applied across board without discrimination. But when a law is flagrantly disobeyed and violated and the enforcement agencies look the other way, the quality of the norms as law, in terms of what they protect and what they forbid, as law properly so-called becomes questionable. This assertion is best illustrated by the Nigerian campaign finance laws.

The Electoral Act 2010, as amended, provides limitations on campaign expenditures of candidates. At the presidential level, it limits the candidates to spending not more than N1bn. It even goes further to provide sanctions for spending above the ceiling. Specifically, in the case of the presidential election, the sanction is to a maximum fine of N1m or imprisonment of 12 months or both. However, available information from empirical and observable facts since the beginning of the 2015 presidential campaigns show that the leading contestants in the Peoples Democratic Party and the All Progressives Congress have breached this ceiling and even with the postponement of the election may deepen their breach of the law. Consider this revelation from the two-page advertorial in Thisday newspaper by Martin Elechi, the Governor of Ebonyi State, who is facing impeachment proceedings from the state House of Assembly: “The campaign materials from the Presidential Campaign office which are meant to be disbursed by the State Governor/Coordinator of the Presidential Campaign for the State are diverted and utilised without the knowledge of the Governor. How they are used, especially Transformation Ambassadors of Nigeria rice is still an unanswered question. The N80million given to Ambassador Franklin Ogbuewu (Deputy Coordinator) for the January 16 rally in Abakiliki was paid into his personal bank account.”

The first matter arising from the above is that the Jonathan Campaign allocated N80m for a rally in Abakiliki. My take is that Abakiliki will not be one of the costliest states in terms of funding its campaign needs. Its hotels, rentals and other campaign logistics needs will be relatively cheaper than states like Lagos, Kano, etc. Thus, it is likely that the N80m for the Abakiliki rally would be one of the least votes for a rally in the Jonathan campaign. Assuming that this is the average sum per rally, multiply N80m by 37 (36 states and the Federal Capital Territory) and it will come up to N2.960bn. This is already in excess of the N1bn ceiling approved by the law. This is just expenditure for one aspect of the campaign. It neither includes money for the minute-by-minute advertisements on television and radio nor the print media advertisements.

The second matter arising from this disclosure by Governor Elechi is the blatant desecration of the political space with filthy inducement by TAN. Section 124 of the Electoral Act is clear and comprehensive on the issue of bribery, inducement, promise, procurement, etc and anyone who directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives, lends or agrees to give or lend, or offers any money or valuable consideration to induce a vote is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to maximum fine of N500,000 or imprisonment for 12 months or both. The promoters of TAN no longer hide the materials they are using to induce voters in violation of the law. They believe that they are above the law. The Act in Section 124 (5) even provides that any person who conspires, aids or abets any other person to commit any of the offences under this part of this Act shall be guilty of the same offence and punishment thereto. Thus, the promoters of TAN have by intent and commission violated the Electoral Act whilst the law enforcement authorities are busy looking the other way. There is more than mere prima facie evidence to prosecute these “ambassadors”. Why is law enforcement so lax and impunity pervading campaign finance administration?

The third matter arising from the revelations is that the Electoral Act further states in Section 124 (6) that “for the purposes of this Act, a candidate shall be deemed to have committed an offence if it was committed with his knowledge and consent or the knowledge and consent of a person who is acting under the general or special authority of the candidate with reference to the election”. The implication of the foregoing is that the candidate who the organisation is supporting is in law guilty of the offence of bribery because he cannot claim ignorance of their actions and if he succeeds in that claim, TAN is acting with the consent of persons who are under the general and special authority of the candidate.

The fourth matter arising from the revelation is that TAN is acting contrary to Section 221 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. The section clearly states that “No association, other than a political party, shall canvass for votes for any candidate at any election or contribute to the funds of any political party or to the election expenses of any candidate at an election. What is TAN? Another political party or what exactly is the nature of the organisation? From where is TAN deriving its funds and other resources? Starting from being persuaders asking President Goodluck Jonathan to run for a second term and now being in the forefront of campaigns with access to incredible and apparently inexhaustible resources are some of the wonders of Nigeria’s democracy.

TAN is in violation of Section 91 (9) of the Electoral Act which states that “No individual or other entity shall donate more than (N1,000,000) to any candidate”. Assuming without conceding that what TAN is doing is legal or it is allowed to contribute to the Jonathan campaign funds, it would have also violated the above provision because it has spent billions of naira in the efforts so far. But the way TAN is spending money leads to only one reasonable conclusion – this are state resources channelled into private hands for the purposes of the campaign. Otherwise, let the funders show themselves, declare how much they contributed, how much they have paid as tax in the last couple of years and the source(s) of their new found wealth which has manifested in this skewed sudden charitable disposition. Drawing this conclusion stems from the fact that high-level state officials have openly embraced TAN and have collaborated with it to violate the law. Therefore, TAN from every reasonable analysis of campaign finance law and policy is a precedent which should not be allowed to continue.

It is admitted that candidates need resources to be able to reach the electorate and ask for their votes. But this should be done within the contemplation of the due process of law. These issues discussed above are weighty and demand the attention of the Independent National Electoral Commission, the Police and other law enforcement and prosecution agencies. Finally, it needs to be brought to the attention of President Goodluck Jonathan in the event he has not been properly advised by his battery of aides.

————————-

– Eze Onyekpere tweets from @censoj

 

Op-ed pieces and contributions are the opinions of the writers only and do not represent the opinions of Y!/YNaija.