THE EDITOR, Sir:IT HAS been reported on radio and television and in the press that in answer to questions asked by Senator Trevor Munroe, Senator Burchell Whiteman disclosed in the Senate on Friday, March 28, that more than half of the candidates in last year's general election had not filed returns of election expenditure required by law. In the 1997 election there was also some non-compliance. The reports stated that Senator Whiteman disclosed that the Electoral Office had decided not to prosecute the offenders because the penalty was only a fine of $100.
An article in The Gleaner of March 31 by Vernon Daley gave details of the answers relating to the 2002 elections. Referring to the 1997 elections it was stated, "Of the 120 candidates who ran, 27 failed to file their returns... Again, because of the paltry fine, the Electoral Office decided not to prosecute the offenders". The article also contained an interview with Director of Elections, Danville Walker, in which he was very critical of the Representation of the People Act as it related to the making of election expenditure returns.
I am compelled to comment on the above. My first observation is that in excess of 180 candidates contested the 1997 elections. Did the more than 60 candidates who have been omitted from the answer file their returns?
Secondly, the question as to whether a candidate who does not comply with the statute should be prosecuted is not a matter for the Electoral Office which is headed by the Director of Elections - not by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Next, although the provisions of the statute with regard to returns are not perfect they are sufficiently comprehensive to ensure compliance. The weakness, permissiveness and lack of vigilance of the electoral authorities have contributed to the law being ignored by some candidates. Not even the summaries of the returns which are made are published by the Returning Officers as required by law!
Finally, and most alarming, neither in 1997 nor 2002 was the penalty for not filing a return a fine of $100 or a "paltry fine". The penalty was and is a fine of not less than $20,000 nor more than $80,000 or imprisonment for a term not less than three years. In addition the person convicted could be disqualified from holding any post of "election officer" for seven years. In addition to the above where there is excessive or unauthorised expenditure this will attract a ban of five years from being registered as a an elector, from voting and from being elected to or holding a seat as a Member of Parliament or a councillor.
Has the Senate been deliberately or unwittingly misled?
I am, etc.,
BERESFORD HAY
P.O. Box 1191
Kingston 8
