INEC, NASS and financial reports of political parties

Eze Onyekpere

The 1999 Constitution gave Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) wide powers to monitor and report on the finances of political parties. The powers are essentially meant to curtail the undue influence of money in electoral politics as well as to keep illicit money out of politics. It seeks to provide some form of level playing field for political contenders so as to ensure that electoral mandates are freely given by the Nigerian people. This discourse reviews the powers of INEC in relation to what it is mandated to do with its reports on political parties, especially in relation to the National Assembly.

By 226(1) and 2:“The Independent National Electoral Commission, shall in every year prepare and submit to the National Assembly a report on the accounts and balance sheet of every political party”. “It shall be the duty of the Commission, in preparing its report under this section, to carry out such investigations as will enable it to form an opinion as to whether proper books of accounts and proper records have been kept by any political party, and if the Commission is of the opinion that proper books of accounts have not been kept by a political party, the Commission shall so report”. By subsection 3: “(3) Every member of the Commission or its duly authorized agent shall-(a)  have a right of access at all times to the books and accounts and vouchers of all political parties; and(b)  be entitled to require from the officers of the political party such information and explanation as he thinks necessary for the performance of his duties under this Constitution, and if the member of the Commission or such agent fails or is unable to obtain all the information and explanation which to the best of his knowledge and belief are necessary for the purposes of the investigation, the Commission shall state that fact in its report”.

The wide duty to prepare and submit a report to NASS necessitated the right of access at all times to the books, accounts and vouchers of the parties. The legislature as the representative of the people is entitled to exercise oversight over the management of political parties as well as over INEC’s discharge of its constitutional and statutory mandates. This is understandable in a presidential democracy with its doctrine of checks and balances and the fact that the legislature as the law giver needs to understand the challenges, issues and prospects of compliance or otherwise with legal provisions so as to be a in strong position for law reform.

However, it appears that after obtaining the report, the Constitution does not stipulate what the NASS should do with the report from INEC. Emergent practice in terms of what NASS has actually done with the report is hard to come by. Since 1999, Nigerians are still waiting for the report of the consideration(s) of the National Assembly following INEC’s reports or any follow up action including new legislation and policy recommendations flowing from a consideration of the reports.

In the alternative, considering that some audited reports of political parties are available on INEC’s website, it would be unbelievable that INEC failed to submit reports to the National Assembly since 1999.The challenge seems to emanate from the fact that the legislators are sponsored by the political parties which they are supposed to exercise oversight over their finances. Can anyone in good faith imagine legislators sponsored by a political party censoring their party if the reports are not satisfactory? This seems like a conflict of interest scenario.

The Constitution focuses its attention on reporting by political parties and neglects expenditure of candidates. This may be in recognition of the fact that political finance expenses go beyond campaign and electioneering expenditure and the fact that parties were receiving public funds. However, the bulk of electioneering resources are spent by candidates.

Essentially, the presidential system of government in Nigeria makes elections and campaign spending candidate-centric instead of being party-centric.  This leaves a great vacuum because campaign expenses form the greater bulk of political financing and the bulk spenders are not under constitutional obligation to report their expenditure.

By S. 228:“The National Assembly may by law provide-(a) for guidelines and rules to ensure internal democracy within political parties, including making laws for the conduct of party primaries, party congresses and party conventions” and “(b) for the conferment on the Independent National Electoral Commission of powers as may appear to the National Assembly to be necessary or desirable for the purpose of enabling the Commission more effectively to ensure that political parties observe the practices of internal democracy, including the fair and transparent conduct of party primaries, party congresses and party conventions”.

Election of delegates at party primaries have become a cash and carry transaction, overtly monetized and controlled by political godfathers. The above constitutional provision calls for proactive action on the part of the legislature to take legislative steps that will enhance internal democracy in parties through reducing the influence of money. Instead of the delegates process of election which is easily amenable to influence by money, party primaries could be done by universal suffrage of all registered and fee-paying members of the party thereby increasing popular participation and making it more difficult for money and bribery to influence the outcome of the primaries.

In conclusion, Nigerians need to see legislative steps to curtail the influence of money in politics through relevant laws and the amendment of the Constitution and the Electoral Act 2010 provides a good opportunity for this to happen.

Onyekpere writes from Abuja