Election Overspending: Legal Lapse or Honest Mistake?

‘An election cannot be invalidated for the mere asking by the opponents of the candidates‘

Qs & As

By Lex

Recent disclosures regarding the election expenses of six newly elected MPs from the ‘Alliance du Changement’ have reignited concerns about financial transparency and electoral integrity in Mauritius. Among them, three ministers and one junior minister have declared spending that exceeds the legal limit set by the Representation of the People Act. While some may see this as an attempt at openness, the law is clear — overspending constitutes an illegal practice that carries severe consequences, including fines and disqualification from voting or running for office.

This controversy raises critical legal and political questions: Should the Electoral Commission or the Electoral Supervisory Commission take action, potentially referring the matter to the Supreme Court? Can the implicated MPs seek relief under Sections 74A and 74B of the Act, claiming inadvertence or good faith? And if the excess spending is minimal, should the Court exercise leniency, or would that undermine the credibility of electoral laws? Lex shares his legal perspective on the matter, shedding light on the potential consequences and broader implications of electoral finance violations.

* Six newly elected MPs from the ‘Alliance du Changement,’ including three ministers and one junior minister, have declared electoral expenses exceeding the legal limit in the last elections. While this may reflect an attempt at transparency, whether intentional or not, it remains a serious violation according to the electoral law of the country, isn’t it?

Spending more than what is allowed by law is a serious offence and constitutes an illegal practice under the Representation of the People Act (The Act). A guilty candidate is liable to pay a fine and will be ineligible to stand as a candidate, vote, or be registered as an elector.

* If the Electoral Commission or Electoral Supervisory Commission decides that these constitute serious violations, do they have to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for legal proceedings and enforcement of penalties?

When an offence is committed, there must be a prosecution. It is for the Electoral Commission or the Electoral Supervisory Commission to decide on the appropriate course of action.

* However, Sections 74A and 74B of the Representation of the People Act provide for “relief” if the Court determines that the MPs’ actions or omissions resulted from inadvertence, a reasonable cause, or a lack of bad faith. Given this provision, how do you expect the Supreme Court to respond to any potential application for relief from the six MPs?

Well, if there is a motion for relief, the Supreme Court will have to examine the facts and circumstances under which the excess payments were declared. The judges will then make a decision. An election cannot be invalidated for the mere asking by the opponents of the candidates.

* Do you think the Court may reject the application for relief if the overspending appears to be a deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage in the election?

Given that the excess expenses were almost insignificant and resulted from either inadvertence or negligence—surely without any criminal intention—it would be an exaggeration to conclude bad faith. Bad faith or criminal intention depends on the circumstances.

* Is it possible that the extent of the overspending by the candidates will also be considered by the Court?  That is if the excess spending is minor, the Supreme Court might grant relief, especially if it did not significantly impact the fairness of the election?

Of course. If the excess amount was minimal, the court is likely to show leniency. After all, how can a few hundred rupees unfairly impact an election?

However, it must be noted that expenses incurred on behalf of a candidate by political agents do not need to be declared in the candidate’s return. This loophole creates a lack of transparency, as any amount spent by an agent remains opaque. A candidate is only guilty of illegal practice if such expenses were made with their consent.

This situation is absurd and undermines the credibility of electoral spending limits. After all, where would an agent get massive amounts to spend on a candidate if not from the candidate themselves?Read More… Become a Subscriber

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 7 February 2025