Gande James* | NRI Commentary

The Office of the Registrar of Political Parties and Candidates has finally decided to take a tough stand by referring 23 elected Members of Parliament (MPs) to the PNG Ombudsman Commission. The MPs failed after several notices were issued to submit their financial returns within three months after the date they were declared successful and the return of writs.

The Registrar’s decision, late last month to refer the 23 MPs on the grounds of failure to comply with Section 89 of the Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates (OLIPPAC) is justifiable. However, the elected members of parliament are not the only ones who have failed to submit their returns. Certain political parties have also failed to submit their returns.

On the one hand, the concerned elected members of parliament have tempered with Section 89 of the OLIPPAC which stipulate financial returns by MPs. Section 89 makes it very clear that within three months from the date a candidate is declared successful and writs returned, or in the case of candidates declared successful through disputed court of returns, financial returns shall be lodged with the Office of Registrar of Political Parties. The return of writs for the 2012 National General Election was in July 2012. The warning issued by the Registrar of Political Parties in August 2013 to refer the 23 MPs suggests that many of the MPs are reluctant to file and submit their returns.

Despite the failure by a significant number of the MPs, others were compliant with the relevant provisions of the OLIPPAC.  In August 2013, at a workshop organised by Integrity of Political Parties & Candidates Commission revealed that 35 MPs submitted their returns before the due date, while 40 made late submissions but nevertheless paid their fines. Eleven MPs made late submission but have yet to pay their fines, while the rest of the MPs have both failed to submit their returns as well as pay their fines. The 23 MPs are amongst the category that made late submissions and failed to pay their fines.

On the other hand, according to the statistics provided at the same workshop, 11 out of 45 political parties had submitted their financial returns before the due date: three submitted their financial returns late but paid their fines; 15 submitted late and have yet to pay their fines; and 19 parties have yet to submit their returns.

Political parties are state institutions and Members of Parliament are actors within the institutions guided by OLIPPAC as the legislative framework. Sections 88 and 89 of the OLIPPAC seek to make political parties and elected members of parliament accountable in terms of how they mobilise and finance their election campaigns. Specifically, they are required to:

• account for the sources of funds;
• specify the nature of the funds (contributions);
• specify how much;
• specify when the funds were received and used, by which candidates; and
• specify the name of the electorate(s) in which the funds were used and for what purpose.

The filing and submission of financial returns by political parties and by MPs within the political parties must be consistent. The OLIPPAC is the highest law insofar as the conduct of political parties and candidates is concerned. There is, however another supporting legislation that should function in collaboration with OLIPPAC to ensure compliance, and that is the respective constitutions of all registered political parties.

All registered political parties must have in their constitution detailed and clear provisions in any areas of concern, including provision on submission of financial returns. This is to ensure that there is compatibility between the OLIPPAC and party constitutions in relation to the submission of financial returns, thus enabling the enforcement of Sections 88 and 89 of the Organic Law.

According to a qualitative review of the constitutions of three registered political parties, of which two are coalition partners in the current government, it was revealed that the parties had failed to clearly, and in detail, provide for the submission of financial returns, both as a registered political party, and for the respective winning candidates or MPs. There is the likelihood that other registered political parties may also fall within the same category of having vague provisions in their constitutions. The vague provisions seemed to have weakened the enforcement of financial returns on the part of the parties concerned. The lack of enforcement in turn points to the weak alignment between the parties concerned, through their constitutions, and the OLIPPAC.

In light of the above, it can be stated that the provisions of OLIPPAC take precedence over any other subordinate laws, including party constitutions since the OLIPPAC is an Act of Parliament. Political parties must necessarily abide by the Organic Law as it is the superior legislation and one that is intended for the good governance and political stability of the country.

An effective alignment between party constitutions and the OLIPPAC ensures that there is a cascading relationship from the National Constitution to the OLIPPAC and ultimately to the party constitutions. Conversely, there is a spiral relationship from the parties’ constitution to the OLIPPAC and to the National Constitution. This relationship allows for accountability on the part of political parties, insofar as party expenditures are concerned, in the form of submission of financial returns to the Office of Registrar of Political Parties.

* Gande James is a cadet researcher of the Governance Research program at the National Research Institute.The views of the author don’t necessary represent that of the institute.