In this report, Chibuzo Ukaibe, looks at the unfolding corruption cases against the former national security adviser and the question of tracking election campaign spendings in the country.
The ongoing prosecution of persons for corruption has reopened the issue of campaign funding in the country. In a system where government is the only business, the debate rages over where to draw the line between the use of public funds and personal funds for campaign purposes, a line so thin it barely exists, some analysts opine.
The prosecution of the former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, has, among others, revealed that bulk of those monies ended up being used for electoral purposes.
The details of huge funds disbursed by Dasuki indicate that it was channeled towards campaigns for the election, particularly that of then ruling party, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
So far, PDP chieftains, including former Board of Trustee (BoT) chairman, Tony Anenih, former governors, Jim Nwobodo, Peter Odili, as well as Bode George, are alleged to have partook from the monies.
They have however denied taking money directly from Dasuki, noting that they only got funds from the former chairman of PDP, Adamu Mu’azu, for campaign purposes in their political zones.
In their defense they said it would have been absurd for them to have questioned their chairman on the source of the funds.
Also, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the charge signed by its Deputy Director, Legal and Prosecution, Mr. Aliyu Yusuf, alleged that media mogul, Raymond Dokpesi, received about N2.1billion from the office of the National Security Adviser, NSA, for PDP’s presidential media campaign.
Feeling the heat of the revelations, PDP has also called for an investigation into funding of campaigns funding of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The party’s national publicity secretary, Olisa Metuh, who faulted the what he believes is the “lopsidedness” of the anti-corruption war, demanded the establishment of National Truth Commission, just as it called for a probe of the presidential security vote since 1984.
The opposition spokesman specifically said an investigation should be opened into “the contributions from APC controlled state governors for their Presidential campaign” as well as “allegations that some serving ministers were appointed to cover up the slush fund that they provided to finance the APC presidential campaign.”
He however noted that until top officials of the former government open up on the exact source of the funding, it remains premature to be accusing their party members of corrupt practices.
However, a report has emerged that APC governorship candidates allegedly paid N1.7billion for campaign adverts.
It was also alleged that President Muhammadu Buhari and APC, one media outfit over N800 million for APC Presidential Campaign live coverage and Presidential Campaign jingles.
The Investigations further revealed that the said amount also covered campaign adverts, documentaries and special television appearances by APC officials.
On live coverage of Presidential Campaign in 36 States alone, the party was to pay N432million at N12million per live coverage. They however, paid N360m after they received discount it was alleged.
It was further alleged that about N150m was paid for live coverage of zonal town hall meetings and separate engagements for the then presidential candidate.
However while these figures remain an allegation, it has yet again caused the revisit of regulation and tracking of campaign funds.
At the height of the election campaigns last year, a civic group, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, (SERAP) filed a law suit against the PDP and APC for failing to disclose their planned expenditure and sources of funding.
The suit came over one month after both parties received a Freedom of Information, FOI, request, but declined to disclose their finances.
The group said it dispatched the FOI request to the the ruling Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, National Chairman, Adamu Mu’azu, and that of the All Progressives Congress, APC, John Odigie-Oyegun on November 18, last year.
Dissatisfied that both parties refused to honour its request, SERAP charged them to court. Between them, the APC and PDP govern 34 of Nigeria’s 36 states.
According to SERAP’s Senior Staff Attorney, Olukayode Majekodunmi, they sought “Information about the spending and sources of income derived from federal, state and other institutions, agencies or persons for the campaigns and other operations of the Defendants related to the February 2015 elections.
“The total amounts that have been spent and the anticipated spending and the sources of any such spending related to the February 2015 general elections.
“Total contributions received by the Defendants for or on behalf of their Presidential candidate and candidates for the governorship elections and the sources of any such contributions.
Earlier in its FOI requests, the plaintiff had expressed “serious concerns about the risks of corruption during electoral campaigns for the February 2015 general elections, especially the role of money in politics and the persistent failure generally to comply with national and international law on political party finance.”
The group said releasing the information will help to address the perception among the citizens that the major political parties in the countries are less transparent and accountable adding that the lack of transparency and accountability in political finance is seriously undermining the legitimacy and credibility of the democratic and electoral processes, and invariably contributing to denying the citizens the right to effective participation in their own government.”
SERAP’s position was quite instructive at the time considering that third party campaigns and rallies especially by the two major political parties- PDP and the APC had set the stage for massive campaigns.
With the flag off of presidential and national assembly elections, it was almost inevitable that laws on campaign funding would be flouted. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) empowered by the Electoral Act, to track election campaign spending was helpless.
According to section 91 of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended, the maximum expenses to be incurred by a candidate at a presidential election shall be N1bn; for governorship it is N200m.
The Electoral Act also placed a campaign ceiling of N40m and N20m for senatorial and House of representative candidates. N10m is the fixed amount for election expenses in the state assembly and chairmanship election for an area council.
Accordingly, sanctions for candidates who knowingly flout these campaign spending limits are as follows: for presidential election it’s N1m or 12 months imprisonment or both. For a governor it’s N800,000 or nine months or both. N600,000 or imprisonment for six months would be slammed on a senatorial candidate, while N500,000 or five months imprisonment will be slammed on a House of Representative candidate who defaults on campaign spending.
But since 1999, there has been little or no record of the electoral commission tracking such campaign spendings, let alone seeing to the prosecution of political parties or candidates that flout that section of the electoral act.
Election campaigns don’t come cheap. Campaign spendings form a huge chunk of monies spent during elections, arguably next to logistics, including transportation, hotel lodgings and so on. As far as elections go in Nigeria, most political parties raise campaign committees to fund their candidates, even though candidates are at liberty to also do their bit.
From heavy jingles on television and radio to huge billboards splattered all over the country, there was little or no check on the campaign spending spree as far as legal restrictions provide.
As such political parties that do not have as much clout (by virtue of states they control) as the two major political parties, have clamoured for the electoral body to reverse its action on giving funds to the political parties. They argue that they stand at a disadvantage going into major elections.
Chairman of Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC), Bashir Yusuf Ibrahim, said “a governor seeking reelection will use the tools and the resources in his office to re-contest. If there is any challenge in court, public funds are used to defend himself. So the value of the vote and capacity of the ordinary person to change the government becomes diminished. Now this is not good and healthy for our democracy, it is one area we want to pay attention to.
He further advocated some measure of funding from INEC to political parties to check such abuse.
He said “I think it is time for us to level the political playing field. We have to make sure that every political party in or out of government or every credible Nigerian with and without money, can aspire to present themselves to the electorate to be voted for, not on account of how much money they have but on how much integrity and competence they can bring to the job. So I want us as IPAC to bring this reform whereby the overwhelming influence of money in politics is curtailed.
“The last general elections we had was the most expensive election that this country has ever had. By some estimate, it was more expensive than the election in the US. Now this money did not come from private businesses or enterprise. Most of it came from public funds.”
Attempt by INEC under Prof. Attahiru Jega, to make a difference ahead of the 2015 general election, didn’t amount to much. For the first time, the commission, had set up a department to tackle this issue, a first since the emergence of INEC.
Jega’s chief press secretary, Kayode Idowu, who stated that the commission had structures in place to ensure that they track such campaign spendings as directed by the law.
He noted that unlike the 2011 general elections a specific unit has been created by the commission to monitor spending of candidates in the 2015 election.
But indeed it could not go far. The commission was in a dilemma of tracking and slamming candidates who exceed the stipulated amount fixed for campaign spending, as it could only act after the act has been committed.
More so, for a commission that had often complained of being over burdened, it is doubtful that it could handle so much in this regard.
Idowu had said “the situation now is that we can only know whether a person has over spent until he or she has spent it. you cannot stop people from spending until the person has spent. What the law anticipates is that we have put ceiling on spending and we will now monitor to know whether we can make a case about it.”
He continued, “INEC can only work within the framework of the law. You are absolutely right that INEC does not have the capacity to handle the magnitude of electoral offenses. That is given and we have said over and again. That is why we have always called for election tribunal. But if the law says INEC should do something even within the constraints, INEC will do what is possible within those constraints.
“INEC will do what it has to do within the framework of the law as it exists at the present. For instance the law says we should publish the audited yearly accounts of the political parties and that is what we have always done. We audit and publish that is what the law says we should do. So after we publish what next. There are places where you have offenses and you don’t have sanctions stated.”
At another forum, in the build up to the polls, the former INEC boss, underscored that going into the last election, nothing could be done. He however added that sanctions would be imposed on the candidate or party if they discovered that they defaulted after the polls.
Jega said: “Nigerians are in a hurry, they wants now make judgment about candidates that have either made donation or spent more But then if you look at the law clearly, it states that until the end of the elections then you make a final judgment on what has been spent or if the law is breached. Regrettably again is the constraint of legal provisions.”
Jega also explained that it would be unrealistic for INEC to say that the issue of money in politics is not there, adding that this has been a challenge to conducting elections in the country.
He said: “It is a major challenge together with the attitude of the politicians, particularly because of impunity; people will do things and get away with it. This is something that must be tackled incrementally and as that is our focus now we cannot say that this will be eliminated in 2015.”
But nothing has been done, until he left office.
His Immediate successor, albeit in acting capacity, Amina Zakari, had expressed the readiness of the commission to put measures in place to effectively track campaign funding.
“The commission had begun putting measures in place to effectively track campaign funding” she said.
But like her predecessor, little was done before the new chairman Prof. Mahmoud Yakubu, was appointed. It is yet to be seen what measures he would take to ensure campaign funding laws are not flouted. http://leadership.ng/features/484786/dasuki-revisiting-election-campaign-spending Lalasticlala |
No single person will be convicted by buari dullaard so call anti kwarrupshun fight. Dasuki will be discharged and aquitted of all media kworrupshun charges. Quote me any where.