Politics
Why Political Parties’ Audited Accounts Haven’t Been Published Since 2016 – INEC
Indications have emerged that the refusal of political parties to submit to the Independent National Electoral Commission their annual financial statement as required by the constitution and the Electoral Act has prevented the commission from monitoring their finances and publishing the same as mandated by the constitution.
INEC confirmed to The Tide source that it audited the accounts of the parties up to 2016 and it had gone far on their 2017 and 2018 accounts, whilst awaiting the remaining years.
INEC Chairman, Prof Mahmood Yakubu, said at a meeting with chairmen of political parties in March 2021 that only one political party complied with the constitutional provision, warning that their refusal to comply was in contravention of the law.
Yakubu had said, “I wish to remind you that the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) requires each political party to submit two election expenses reports to the commission. First is the disclosure of material contributions received from individuals and corporate bodies three months after the announcement of the results of the General Election as provided for in Section 93(4) of the Electoral Act. So far, no political party is in compliance.
“Secondly, parties are required to submit audited returns of their election expenses within six months after an election as provided for in Section 92(3)(a) of the Electoral Act. Although we are still within the time frame provided by law, so far only one party has filed its returns. Similarly, the commission notes that only one presidential candidate has submitted financial expenses report. We wish to remind leaders of political parties of their obligations under the law.”
A top source in the commission however told our correspondent that the reason INEC had defaulted in publishing the accounts annually, in line with the constitution, was because political parties had refused to comply.
The source said, “The truth of the matter is that the parties have not been complying. I don’t know how many of them have been complying, but the big ones have not. These are our stakeholders and we meet with them, so we don’t want it to appear as if we are dragging them in the media.”
When asked why the commission did not sanction them for not complying, the source said, “We try to persuade them to do what is expected of them rather than wield the big stick. The current chairman likes to persuade people instead of imposing sanctions all the time. It is only when we try all persuasive means and they don’t change that we apply sanctions, and then they come begging.
“When the chairman comes out to speak like that, it’s a note of warning to them and we expect that they should understand. They don’t have to wait till the commission comes hard on them in that regard.”
Meanwhile, when asked why the commission has not published the parties’ audited accounts for years, violating the constitution that seeks to entrench transparency and accountability in the way the parties are run, the Chief Press Secretary to INEC Chairman, Mr Rotimi Oyekanmi, said, “The commission has audited the accounts of political parties up till 2016 and we have gone far on 2017 and 2018 accounts.
“However, the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019 slowed us down. Don’t forget also, the commission deregistered 74 political parties in February 2020 and we now have 18 political parties. However, we have made substantial progress and work on this issue will be completed in due course.”
Section 86 of the Electoral Act mandates every political party to submit its detailed annual statement of account to the commission, which would be audited by the commission and subsequently published in two national newspapers and the commission’s website.
Section 86 (1) states, “Every political party shall submit to the commission a detailed annual statement of assets and liabilities and analysis of its sources of funds and other assets, together with statement of its expenditure including hard and soft copy of its list of members or in such a form as the commission may require.
“(2) Any official of the political party who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable to a fine of Nl,000,000 or imprisonment for a term of six months or both. (3) A political party shall grant to any officer authorised in writing by the commission, access to examine the records and audited accounts kept by the political party in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the political party shall give to the officer all such information as may be requested in relation to all contributions received by or on behalf of the party.
“(4) The commission shall publish the report on such examinations and audit in two national newspapers and the commission’s website within 30 days of receipt of the results.”
Similarly, section 15, under Part I of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), mandates the commission to “monitor the organisation and operation of the political parties, including their finances,” and “arrange for the annual examination and auditing of the funds and accounts of political parties, and publish a report on such examination and audit for public information.”
Also, Section 225 (1) states, “Every political party shall, at such times and in such manner as the independent National Electoral Commission and publish a statement of its assets and liabilities.” The subsection (2) adds, “Every political party shall submit to the Independent National Electoral Commission a detailed annual statement and analysis of its sources of funds and other assets together with a similar statement of its expenditure in such form as the Commission may require.”
When contacted on the reason for their refusal to submit their detailed accounts annually, some of the major parties did not answer their calls.
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed, through a second reading, a bill seeking to retain immunity for the Office of the President and remove immunity from the Vice President, the Governors and the Deputy Governors.
The bill was one of the 42 considered and passed through the second reading stage during plenary presided over by the Deputy Speaker, Mr Benjamin Kalu, in Abuja.
Sponsored by Hon. Solomon Bob (Rivers PDP), the bill is seeking the amendment of Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution to guard against abuse of office and to ensure transparency in governance.
The long title of the proposed legislation read: “A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to qualify the immunity conferred on the President, remove the immunity conferred on the Vice President, the Governors and their deputies, in order to curb corruption, eradicate impunity and enhance accountability in public office and for related matters.”
Key amendments include changes to Section 308 of the Constitution, which currently grants immunity to the president, vice president, governors, and deputy governors while in office.
The proposed bill will amend subsection 3 to ensure that immunity only applies to the President and the vice president when acting as President under Section 145 of the Constitution.
Additionally, a new subsection 4 will be introduced to make the immunity clause inapplicable if the office holder is acting in an unofficial capacity, engaging in actions beyond the powers of the office, or involved in criminal conduct.
“The bill seeks to foster transparency and strengthen the fight against corruption by making public officials more accountable for their actions, both in and out of office.”
“Section 308 of the principal Act is amended by:(a) substituting a new subsection (3) as follows: “(3) This section applies to a person holding the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Vice President only when acting as President, in line with Section 145 of this Constitution.
Creating sub section (4) thereto as follows:”(4) The foregoing provisions of this section shall be inapplicable where the person to whom this section applies is acting in an unofficial capacity or where the conduct of the person is beyond the powers of his office or the conduct is criminal in nature.
“This Bill may be cited as the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) Act 2024.
The bill is currently awaiting further debate and consideration by the National Assembly.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has written to notify Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the senator representing Kogi Central, about the petition by constituents seeking her recall from the national assembly.
INEC said it has also received the contact details of the petitioners.
“Pursuant to section 69 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, I write to notify you of the receipt of a petition from representatives of registered voters in your constituency seeking your recall from the senate.
“The notification is in line with the provisions of clause 2 (a) of the Commission’s Regulations and Guidelines for Recall 2024.
“This letter is also copied to the presiding officer of the senate and simultaneously published on the commission’s website. Thank you”, the letter read.
The letter was signed by Ruth Oriaran Anthony, secretary to the commission.
Meanwhile, in a statement issued on Wednesday, INEC said it has now received the updated contact details from representatives of petitioners seeking to recall the senator.
In the statement, Sam Olumekun, INEC’s National Commissioner and Chairman of Information and Voter Education, said a letter notifying the senator of the petition has been delivered to her official address, copied to the senate presiding officer, and published on the commission’s website.
“The next step is to scrutinise the list of signatories submitted by the petitioners to ascertain that the petition is signed by more than one half (over 50%) of the registered voters in the constituency. This will be done in the coming days.
“The outcome, which will be made public, shall determine the next step to be taken by the Commission. We once again reassure Nigerians that the process will be open and transparent”, Mr Olumekun said.
Sen. Akpoti-Uduaghan had recently accused Senate President Godswill Akpabio of sexually harassing her.
The allegation came in the wake of seating arrangement related altercation between Senator. Akpabio and the Kogi Central senator at the red chamber
She was subsequently suspended from the senate for six months for “gross misconduct” over the incident.
The constituents behind the recall move also accused her of “gross misconduct, abuse of office, and deceitful behaviour”.
The senator has denied wrongdoing and called the recall effort a “coordinated suppression” of her voice.
The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed the second reading of a bill to upgrade the Lagos State 37 Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs) to full-fledged Local Government Areas (LGAs ).
The bill, was sponsored by James Faleke, Babajimi Benson, Enitan Badru, and 19 other lawmakers.
The bill is titled “A Bill for an Act to Alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) to Accommodate the Thirty-Seven (37) Development Area Councils of Lagos State as Full-Fledged Local Government Areas, Increasing the Total Number of Local Government Areas in the Federation to Eight Hundred and Eleven (811), and for Related Matters (HB. 1498),”
Once fully enacted, Nigeria’s total number of LGAs will rise from 774 to 811, with Lagos overtaking Kano and Katsina, which currently have 44 and 34 LGAs, respectively.
Proponents of the bill argue that granting full LGA status to the LCDAs would bring governance closer to the people. The 37 LCDAs were created by President Bola Tinubu in 2003 when he was governor of Lagos State.
However, it’s worth noting that the Lagos State House of Assembly has been working on a bill to replace the 37 LCDAs with newly designated administrative areas.