• PAFFREL and CMEV claim many important areas unclear or unaddressed

 Polls monitors last Saturday (7) pointed out that the Regulation of Election Expenditure Bill, which is set to introduce election campaign financing laws to Sri Lanka, has multiple loopholes, as important matters have not been clearly laid down or excluded altogether in the provisions of the new Bill.

Speaking to The Morning, People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL)  Executive Director Rohana Hettiarachchi said last Saturday that the Bill had not specified the requirement of a separate bank account for election financing purposes of the candidates.

“The first thing is they (candidates) have to open a new bank account. It doesn’t have to be a new one, it could also be an existing account but should be utilised separately for this purpose. Money contributed by anyone – either a friend, political party, or businessman – has to be credited to this account and all expenses should be paid for through the same. In this Bill, there is no such reference to separate bank accounts. The main purpose of this Bill seems to be missing. Even though expenditure reports are to be submitted, there is no proper mechanism in place to verify them,” he added.

He further stated that there should be a provision to determine who is permitted to contribute to or fund a candidate’s election campaign.

“There should be a mechanism or legal frame to determine who can or cannot fund the candidate. There should be limitations on sectors, and not only on individuals. If a candidate is obtaining money from overseas, from some Government, non-Government organisation (NGO), illegal business persons, or even legal persons, who engage in harmful practices to the society, should be monitored,” he added.

Meanwhile, Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV) Chief of Operations Attorney D.M. Dissanayake noted last Saturday that while this Bill is presented to limit the expenses of the candidates, there are no criteria specified to determine the amount.

“The EC and the representative of the political party will together decide the amount. There should be some proper criteria to decide the amount. There should be a foundation,” he added.

Further, he pointed out that expenses of referendums have been excluded from this Bill.

“These are also crucial. Referendums are called to obtain people’s approval for a specific issue in the country. If a foreign country intends to pressure the people in the country to vote for something, they can easily opt to support political parties. This issue is not monitored. Any outsider or foreign country can spend for referendums without being monitored. This could pose a threat to the sovereignty of the country,” he added.

Both PAFFREL and CMEV officials pointed out that the Bill does not address a proper mechanism for how the EC can monitor expenses.

Dissanayake said: “There is no proper mechanism on how the EC can monitor (expenses). The Bill says that the candidates should provide their statements within 21 days of the result being announced. How will the EC scrutinise these reports?”

Concurrently, Hettiarachchi said: “There should be a specific team or group under the EC, to monitor the campaign financing. However, opposition political parties are able to openly monitor, and not just them, even election monitors or citizens are able to observe. Despite these mechanisms, there should be a separate unit from the side of the EC. This team should have the power to investigate and should be granted the power to examine campaign financing reports in between elections. The candidate should maintain proper records. It should be recorded in the format provided by the EC. This had not been addressed in the Bill. There should be a format provided by the EC, and the EC’s representatives should have authority to investigate and check the situation in between election periods as well.”

Both poll monitors pointed out that the punishment for violations is inadequate and needs to be updated according to the gravity of the offence in relevance to the current context.

Dissanayake said: “The punishment for violations is not at par with the offence. It will be considered a violation of the election law according to each election Act. The punishment that had been mentioned in these Acts for election violations will be applicable under this Bill as well. Sanctions need to be updated with the present situation.”

Hettirachchi said: “A maximum of a Rs. 300 fine and a three-year ban from contesting has been mentioned under each elections Act as punishment for violations. Punishments in all existing election Act were adopted many years ago but has not been reviewed since then. This is not enough. The section regarding punishments should be reviewed and should comply with the new legal framework. It should be amended in the Elections Act as well, but when it comes to campaign financing, they should bring in new regulations to the Bill, then it would be very clear, rather than making reference to previous Acts.”

Accordingly, the Regulation of Election Expenditure Bill to regulate the expenditure incurred by candidates at every election conducted under the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance, the Provincial Councils Elections Act No.2 of 1988, the Parliamentary Elections Act No.1 of 1981, and the Presidential Elections Act No.15 of 1981, and to provide for matters therewith were presented to Parliament on 8 December 2022, for the first reading by the Minister of Justice, Prisons Affairs, and Constitutional Reforms.