President Goodluck Jonathan
THE Peoples Democratic Party
Fund Raising Dinner held at the Presidential Villa, Abuja, to boost
President Goodluck Jonathan’s campaign war chest has been attracting
public attention. The event, which took place last Saturday, was
attended by business people, multinational organisations, interest
groups and individuals who donated a sum of N21.27 billion to support
his campaign for the 2015 presidential election.
But the President and his party
will definitely have trouble explaining away this latest bizarre
development in regard to the law of the electoral game and the morality
in politics.
Though how a political party’s
candidate raises his or her campaign funds is the party’s affair, the
process must comply with the extant laws and pass the integrity test.
First, Nigerian laws are unambiguous on campaign expenses and funding.
The 1999 Constitution in Section 221 clearly states: “No association,
other than a political party, shall canvass for votes for any candidate
at any election or contribute to the funds of any political party or to
the election expenses of any candidate at an election.” The Companies
and Allied Matters Act also expressly forbids companies in Section 38
(2) from funding or donating gifts, property or money to any political
party or association. Then the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, specifies
in Section 91 (2) that “the maximum election expenses to be incurred by
a candidate at a presidential election shall be N1 billion.”
But Jonathan, the ruling PDP and
its 21 state governors took lawlessness to a new height on Saturday
when one Tunde Ayeni, leading other donors, gave N2 billion on behalf of
himself and his unnamed “partner” and “friends.” Jerry Gana, a
permanent fixture in successive governments, announced N5 billion on
behalf of his equally mysterious friends and “associates in the power
sector.” Not to be outdone, oil and gas sector “friends” also pledged N5
billion; real estate and building sector, N4 billion; transport and
aviation sector, N1 billion; food and agriculture, N500 million; power,
N500 million; construction, N310 million; road construction, N250
million; National Automotive Association, N450 million; and Shelter
Development Limited, N250 million. Going by the Electoral Act, which
caps the donation an individual could make at N1 million, 5,000 donors
must have been behind Gana’s N5 billion gift.
There is no doubting the fact
that these donations raise salient questions verging on transparency. At
a period when the government should be taking interest in enforcing
compliance with the money laundering laws, people should not come out to
announce donations on behalf of themselves and their “friends,” without
actually naming those “friends.” It should also be of interest to know
if those donors and their anonymous “friends” have complied with
appropriate tax obligations. International best practices stipulate this
as the minimum irreducible requirement.
Many Nigerians will also be
interested in knowing how the Board of the Niger Delta Development
Commission, which was credited with producing N15 million, came about
its donation. As a government agency, where did it derive such powers to
donate to a political party from? Having done this for the PDP
presidential campaign, will the commission also make a similar amount
available to other parties?
As for the sectoral donors,
there is also the need for total disclosure. Who were the actors in the
oil and gas sector that donated N5 billion? If they are publicly quoted
companies, did they get the approval of their shareholders before going
on the spending spree? How did the power sector that has not been able
to muster enough investible funds come about a N500 million donation?
With the automobile industry donating N450 million, it is no longer
surprising that it benefited so much from the government’s controversial
waivers.
Ayeni, a legal practitioner
whose consortium recently acquired NITEL and Mtel, is also the chairman
of Skye Bank Plc and a director in the Ibadan Electricity Development
Company. Given that these big time sectoral players have suddenly become
the big donors to the President’s campaign, what is the guarantee that
regulators would be able to control them? It is little wonder that the
government, after selling the power sector to private operators, is
still interested in arranging a N213 billion bailout for them.
So, except the players in the
various sectors donated their own money, they have brazenly violated the
law if they did so on behalf of their companies. The relevant
authorities should demand their tax returns. As of 2010, domestic
airlines collectively owed banks and regulators over N300 billion. To
say the least, this is another outrageous example of brazen impunity in
government.
Indeed, a string of ugly
scandals has dotted the Jonathan administration. Among the most
unsettling cases is the N2.53 trillion paid out in 2011 as petrol
subsidies to cronies and “ghost” businessmen when the National Assembly
approved only N245 billion that year. We also recollect the mind-numbing
loss to the national treasury of some questionable waivers that cost
the country N64 billion in first six months of the year. Funds that
disappeared from the public till can now find their way back as campaign
donations. There is also the unresolved issue of missing billions of
dollars at the state-owned oil company.
This scale of campaign slush
funds and illegal contributions in return for some political and
economic favours is deeply worrying. On moral grounds, leveraging on
political power to raise campaign funds is corrosively anti-democratic.
That it was done by previous administrations should not be a justifiable
excuse for the flagrant abuse of power. There is next to no doubt that
some of these funds are of doubtful origin. It is just sickening to find
a President who claims to be fighting corruption fraternising with the
venal high and mighty.
But a graver worry is how the
toxic donations will further poison the electoral process and shore up
the system of patronage. We are also faced with a total collapse in
political morality, with corruption worn now as a badge of honour. It is
sad to note that there is an instinctive conclusion among the Nigerian
public that the Jonathan government is the most financially corrupt,
fiscally irresponsible, politically insensitive and socially
disconnected in Nigerian history. What a shame! The 21 PDP governors
should also explain if their state legislatures approved the N50 million
each they donated and whether they will extend the largesse to other
parties.
In real democracies, laws
regulate the conduct of candidates and international best practices
demand transparency and specificity in campaign financing. In the United
States, for instance, campaign contributions from government
contractors, personal or business funds, individuals or sole proprietors
who have entered into a contract with the government are prohibited by
law. Any infraction or suspected questionable behaviour is investigated
and culprits punished. This explains why French authorities since 2013
have been investigating Nicolas Sarkozy, the immediate past French
President, over the allegation that he received €50 million from the
late Muammar Gaddaffi as financial help for his 2007 presidential
campaign. The US federal prosecutors have launched a clutch of
corruption investigations against politicians such as Washington Mayor,
Vincent Gray, and Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell, who received money
from local businessmen they claim was in accordance with accepted
campaign finance practices.
Impunity starts from little
things left unpunished. These financial irregularities inside the
Jonathan re-election campaign should also be investigated. While Section
8 (1) of the Federal Inland Revenue Service enabling law empowers the
FIRS to adopt measures to identify, trace, freeze, confiscate or seize
proceeds derived from tax fraud or evasion, Section 35 (3) says “…the
Service may cause investigation to be conducted into the properties of
any taxable person if it appears to the Service that the lifestyle of
the person and extent of the properties are not justified by his source
of income.” Most of the donors in this bizarre event fall within this
category. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has sufficient
grounds to investigate the suspicious financial transactions.
It is all evident that Jonathan
has failed badly to build a credible, honest and minimally effective
government for almost half a decade that he has been President. This is
regrettable indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment