Many who scanned the Sunday Sun today [3/8/2014] to get a read of Caswell’s column encountered disappointment. BU is pleased to assist the Nation Publishing Company in making an ABC editorial decision – Barbados Underground
On July 6, 2014 the country was informed via the Sunday Sun that the 68 candidates in the February 21, 2013 general election spent just over $2.2 million on their election bids.
The report went on to say that regional political pollster, Peter Wickham, had voiced his concern about the manner in which the figures were collected. He called for a more robust system to collect the figures and suggested that the money declared had nothing to do with what was actually spent by the two major political parties.
Up to that point, I am in complete agreement with Mr. Wickham. Thereafter, his analysis exposed a gap in his knowledge of our electoral laws that caused him to make some erroneous conclusions. As a result, he merely provided excuses for politicians operating in our flawed electoral system. Barbados has more than adequate election laws to handle any perceived irregularity; the problems come from the lack of enforcement.
This week I intended to write part 3 of my mini-series on pensions but I could not allow the information attributed to Mr. Wickham to take root and spread. However, I would first like to deal with the one area on which we agree, and that relates to the under-reporting of election expenses.
Within seven weeks after the result of the election is declared, the Representation of the People Act, at section 52, requires the election agent of every candidate to transmit to the Supervisor of Elections a statement of all payments made by the election agent together with all bills and receipts. The supervisor is then required by section 59 to publish the return, within fourteen days of receipt, in not less than two newspapers and inform the public that the return may be inspected at the Registration Office.
Section 60 goes on to require the Registrar to keep the returns for two years and make them available for inspection on the payment of a fee of one dollar. Also, copies are available at a fee of ten cents for each hundred words.
Accompanied by two independent candidates, I went to the Registration Department where we paid for and obtained copies of the returns for selected candidates of the ruling party. On inspection we were immediately able to discover why none of the candidates exceeded the spending limits. Solely from checking the documents, we concluded that the candidates did not have posters or other printed advertising material; or rather no expenditure on any such thing was declared.
This is why I have difficulty with Mr. Wickham’s assertion that the Electoral Office has no capacity to audit the statements submitted by candidates. All the resources required to determine that the statements were incomplete would have been one good eye.
He went on to detail a number of scenarios where expenses could be incurred by the candidate’s party, or some other third person. However, if any of those situations arose, the secretary or similar officer of the party or other donor would be required to complete one of the prescribed forms (Form 4) attesting to that expenditure, in accordance with section 52 of the Representation of the People Act. Subsection 3 (d) states, in part:
(3) The return shall also contain in respect of that candidate –
(d) a statement of all moneys, securities and equivalent of money received by the election agent from the candidate or any other person for the purposes of election expenses incurred or to be incurred, with a statement of the name of every person from whom they are received.
None of these forms were filed on behalf of any of the candidates that we checked which would therefore mean that the election was funded solely out of the personal resources of the candidates.
That brings me to an article entitled, “Ban Begging” which appeared in the June 22nd edition of the Sunday Sun. In that article, Mr. Ralph “Bizzy” Williams recommended that politicians should be barred from soliciting funds from individuals and companies to help run their election campaigns. Mind you, if the election returns are anything to go by, Mr. Williams would have no cause for concern since according to the returns all the candidates were unsuccessful in their fund raising efforts.
During my research, I came upon a situation that intrigues me, and for what it is worth, I think that I shall share it. Under section 41 of the Representation of the People Act, a candidate is required to appoint an election agent, who can be the candidate himself or some other person. That appointment can be revoked in accordance with subsection (3). Thereafter, subsection (4) states, in part:
“Where, whether before during or after the election, the appointment of an election agent is revoked or an election agent dies, another election agent shall be appointed immediately…”
As we have seen earlier, the agent is required by section 52 of the Representation of the People Act to transmit a true return of all the payments made within seven weeks after the result is declared. One of the candidates in the last election submitted his own return. He did so without first revoking the original appointment and appointing himself as agent.
I am therefore wondering if the return was properly filed in accordance with the law, and what would be the effect in light of section 56 which states:
“Where, in the case of any candidate, the return and declarations as to election expenses are not transmitted before the expiration of the time limited for the purpose, the candidate shall not, after the expiration of that time, sit or vote in the House of Assembly as a member for the constituency for which the election was held until either the said return and declarations have been transmitted or until the date of allowance of an authorized excuse for failure to transmit the said return and declarations, and if he sits or votes in contravention of this subsection he is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of one hundred dollars for every day or part thereof on which he sits or votes”.
I there think that it is reasonable to ask, Is Mr. Sinckler properly seated in the House of Assembly or am I just tilting at windmills?
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.