By Eze Onyekpere
The Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) made copious provisions in S.124 against vote buying, bribery, inducement, etc, in the electoral process.
Any person 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 any person to influence the vote or the return of any person to any office is guilty of an offence.
In the same direction, anyone who corruptly makes any gift, loan, promise, procurement or agreement with any person to induce such person to vote in a particular manner or to procure the return of a person to an elective office is also guilty of an offence. The offence carries a punishment of 12 months imprisonment or a fine of N500,000 or both.
But our polity today witnesses massive inducements by candidates and political parties to woo the electorate with materials such as rice and other grains, salt, sugar, flour, fertilisers, etc. The candidates no longer hide what they give or do so in secret but they have become so bold and brazen that they brand the materials with their pictures and slogans. The materials are distributed before the media and security agencies. Also, the officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) cannot claim ignorance of the distribution of the materials.
Inducement was elevated to an art when it was branded stomach infrastructure in the Ekiti State gubernatorial polls. It was even justified as normal in the state as there were radio and television announcements directing people to venues where the distribution was taking place.
Even if an individual is not a part of the political process but advances money for the inducement, procurement or bribery to take place, such a person is also guilty of an offence.
The Act goes further to provide that after an election, anyone who directly, or indirectly, by himself, or by any other person on his behalf receives any money or valuable consideration on account of any person having voted or refrained from voting, or having induced any other person to vote or refrain from voting or having induced any candidate to refrain from canvassing for votes for himself at any such election is guilty of an offence which attracts the same punishment as above.
Further, any person who conspires, aids or abets any other person to commit any of the aforementioned offences shall be guilty of the same offence and punishment thereto.
Thus, not only are the direct participants in the crime guilty but any person who aids and abets the inducement is also guilty and liable to the same punishment. The Act did not spare candidates: For the purposes of the Electoral 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 candidate will be guilty if he knew of the inducement, bribery or procurement or done with the consent of his general or special authority delegate in the election.
The implication of the provisions in the above paragraph is that if our law enforcement agents sit up in their duty, even the candidates will be prosecuted for the inducements and bribery because they cannot claim ignorance of the acts and omissions constituting the crime.
Even if they claim such ignorance, since the acts were done by persons with general and special authorities to act for them in respect of the election, they will be liable under the provisions of the Act. The central question for candidates is; who is financing these inducements and bribery? The resources are prima facie coming from the candidates unless they can prove otherwise. They cannot feign ignorance of rice, salt, sugar, flour etc branded with their pictures and campaign slogans.
Is the law too ahead of society in these provisions? Why is the law obeyed in the breach? These questions are pertinent considering that almost every political party and candidate is guilty of a breach of these provisions. It is also clear that law enforcement agencies do not see the violation of these sections as an offence upon which they could arrest, investigate and prosecute culprits.
But the law as a command of the sovereign backed by sanctions should be obeyed and enforced to the letter. Moreover, there is good sense and public good in ensuring that money and access to resources do not determine the outcome of elections. The ball is back in the court of INEC, law enforcement agencies and civil society who should collectively insist on respect and obedience to the law.
Onyekpere wrote from Abuja