Anambra’s campaign poster law

Acardinal pillar of democracy is the provision of a level-playing field to all stakeholders. It demands that each contestant  offering himself or herself for an elective public office be given an equal opportunity, provided that (s)he meets the requirements for such office and has complied with the  extant laws. This tenet of democracy would however seem to be on trial in Anambra State, at the moment. Amid the rising tempo of horse-trading preparatory to the forthcoming Anambra State governorship poll, the state government has stirred the hornet’s nest with a curious and highly controversial piece of legislation capable of further obfuscating the political space. The new law mandates any governorship aspirant who intends to have his or her posters pasted across the state to pay N9 million, and prohibits the pasting of posters by aspirants and their parties without authorisation by the Anambra State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ANSAA) and whoever flouts it risks prosecution.

The official reason adduced for the law is even more curious. It is hinged on the need to raise money to clean up the mess that would result from posters after the forthcoming election. The law invests the government with the power and authority to dictate to governorship contenders and their supporters where to paste election materials in the state, just as it is compulsory for whoever wishes to erect billboards to patronise only registered advertising agencies domiciled in the state. By the law, a contestant is required to pay N3 million for each of the three senatorial districts in the state, making a total of N9 million.

The action has been roundly condemned by the opposition politicians in the state who see it as a “sign of government resentment for popular participation in the coming poll,” as well as an attempt to “use state resources to fight people instead of making their lives better.” This legislation evidently insults people’s sensibilities because it runs against the tenets of democracy. Democracy is underscored by open participation, but the law is designed to foist the culture of exclusion on the state and limit the right of choice by the electorate. In this connection, the excuses offered by the government are hollow, shallow and completely whimsical. They give the impression that it is apprehensive of the contest of public popularity and acceptance which an election represents under democracy. It is in the best interest of the government to create and foster, particularly now, a climate of fairness and transparency, relying on its score sheet as the magic wand with which to sway voters, instead of resorting to arm-twisting antics and tactics.

There is indeed no basis for the new signage law. As such, we demand that it be discarded without further delay. All stakeholders in the forthcoming election must insist on the authorities playing by the rules of the game as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act. The so-called legislation does no good to the stakeholders, including those currently in the saddle. It can only exacerbate political intolerance in the state. The government must not give the impression of desperation to frustrate others in what should be an all-inclusive contests. What is more, the Anambra law can only compound the existing tradition of excessive use of money in the nation’s political system, which the Electoral Act has tried to address but with minimal success. The law seeks to impose additional financial burdens on the contestants, with potentially negative consequence for governance after the election has been won and lost. It is a legislation borne out of mental laziness and certainly not the best way to shore up the government’s revenue base.

The threat of litigation against those who might undermine the law can only heighten the fears in many quarters that it is meant to witch-hunt certain categories of aspirants and their parties and give real advantage to the incumbent governor. This is because all that is needed to get an aspirant into trouble is to paste his/her posters in unapproved places. The provisions of the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution are sufficient guides for the conduct of election in Anambra and any other state. Anambra must not undermine both the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

Aspirants already have more than enough financial challenges, including the logistics to hire  canvassers, facilitate political meetings, and pay delegates to congresses. Then, they must hold rallies and spend money on transportation, rentals, nomination fees, radio and television jingles, and handbills. Section 91 (9) of the Electoral Act stipulates that an individual or other entity shall not donate more than N1 million to any candidate, and Section 91 (10) of the Electoral Act warns that any candidate who knowingly contravenes the preceding section would have committed an offence and, on conviction, is liable, in the case of a presidential election for instance, to a maximum fine of N1 million or imprisonment for a term of 12 months or both. The new legislation in Anambra makes a mockery of the Electoral Act and should be abandoned forthwith.

Acardinal pillar of democracy is the provision of a level-playing field to all stakeholders. It demands that each contestant  offering himself or herself for an elective public office be given an equal opportunity, provided that (s)he meets the requirements for such office and has complied with the  extant laws. This tenet of democracy would however seem to be on trial in Anambra State, at the moment. Amid the rising tempo of horse-trading preparatory to the forthcoming Anambra State governorship poll, the state government has stirred the hornet’s nest with a curious and highly controversial piece of legislation capable of further obfuscating the political space. The new law mandates any governorship aspirant who intends to have his or her posters pasted across the state to pay N9 million, and prohibits the pasting of posters by aspirants and their parties without authorisation by the Anambra State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ANSAA) and whoever flouts it risks prosecution.

The official reason adduced for the law is even more curious. It is hinged on the need to raise money to clean up the mess that would result from posters after the forthcoming election. The law invests the government with the power and authority to dictate to governorship contenders and their supporters where to paste election materials in the state, just as it is compulsory for whoever wishes to erect billboards to patronise only registered advertising agencies domiciled in the state. By the law, a contestant is required to pay N3 million for each of the three senatorial districts in the state, making a total of N9 million.

The action has been roundly condemned by the opposition politicians in the state who see it as a “sign of government resentment for popular participation in the coming poll,” as well as an attempt to “use state resources to fight people instead of making their lives better.” This legislation evidently insults people’s sensibilities because it runs against the tenets of democracy. Democracy is underscored by open participation, but the law is designed to foist the culture of exclusion on the state and limit the right of choice by the electorate. In this connection, the excuses offered by the government are hollow, shallow and completely whimsical. They give the impression that it is apprehensive of the contest of public popularity and acceptance which an election represents under democracy. It is in the best interest of the government to create and foster, particularly now, a climate of fairness and transparency, relying on its score sheet as the magic wand with which to sway voters, instead of resorting to arm-twisting antics and tactics.

There is indeed no basis for the new signage law. As such, we demand that it be discarded without further delay. All stakeholders in the forthcoming election must insist on the authorities playing by the rules of the game as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act. The so-called legislation does no good to the stakeholders, including those currently in the saddle. It can only exacerbate political intolerance in the state. The government must not give the impression of desperation to frustrate others in what should be an all-inclusive contests. What is more, the Anambra law can only compound the existing tradition of excessive use of money in the nation’s political system, which the Electoral Act has tried to address but with minimal success. The law seeks to impose additional financial burdens on the contestants, with potentially negative consequence for governance after the election has been won and lost. It is a legislation borne out of mental laziness and certainly not the best way to shore up the government’s revenue base.

The threat of litigation against those who might undermine the law can only heighten the fears in many quarters that it is meant to witch-hunt certain categories of aspirants and their parties and give real advantage to the incumbent governor. This is because all that is needed to get an aspirant into trouble is to paste his/her posters in unapproved places. The provisions of the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution are sufficient guides for the conduct of election in Anambra and any other state. Anambra must not undermine both the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

Aspirants already have more than enough financial challenges, including the logistics to hire  canvassers, facilitate political meetings, and pay delegates to congresses. Then, they must hold rallies and spend money on transportation, rentals, nomination fees, radio and television jingles, and handbills. Section 91 (9) of the Electoral Act stipulates that an individual or other entity shall not donate more than N1 million to any candidate, and Section 91 (10) of the Electoral Act warns that any candidate who knowingly contravenes the preceding section would have committed an offence and, on conviction, is liable, in the case of a presidential election for instance, to a maximum fine of N1 million or imprisonment for a term of 12 months or both. The new legislation in Anambra makes a mockery of the Electoral Act and should be abandoned forthwith.

Acardinal pillar of democracy is the provision of a level-playing field to all stakeholders. It demands that each contestant  offering himself or herself for an elective public office be given an equal opportunity, provided that (s)he meets the requirements for such office and has complied with the  extant laws. This tenet of democracy would however seem to be on trial in Anambra State, at the moment. Amid the rising tempo of horse-trading preparatory to the forthcoming Anambra State governorship poll, the state government has stirred the hornet’s nest with a curious and highly controversial piece of legislation capable of further obfuscating the political space. The new law mandates any governorship aspirant who intends to have his or her posters pasted across the state to pay N9 million, and prohibits the pasting of posters by aspirants and their parties without authorisation by the Anambra State Signage and Advertisement Agency (ANSAA) and whoever flouts it risks prosecution.

The official reason adduced for the law is even more curious. It is hinged on the need to raise money to clean up the mess that would result from posters after the forthcoming election. The law invests the government with the power and authority to dictate to governorship contenders and their supporters where to paste election materials in the state, just as it is compulsory for whoever wishes to erect billboards to patronise only registered advertising agencies domiciled in the state. By the law, a contestant is required to pay N3 million for each of the three senatorial districts in the state, making a total of N9 million.

The action has been roundly condemned by the opposition politicians in the state who see it as a “sign of government resentment for popular participation in the coming poll,” as well as an attempt to “use state resources to fight people instead of making their lives better.” This legislation evidently insults people’s sensibilities because it runs against the tenets of democracy. Democracy is underscored by open participation, but the law is designed to foist the culture of exclusion on the state and limit the right of choice by the electorate. In this connection, the excuses offered by the government are hollow, shallow and completely whimsical. They give the impression that it is apprehensive of the contest of public popularity and acceptance which an election represents under democracy. It is in the best interest of the government to create and foster, particularly now, a climate of fairness and transparency, relying on its score sheet as the magic wand with which to sway voters, instead of resorting to arm-twisting antics and tactics.

There is indeed no basis for the new signage law. As such, we demand that it be discarded without further delay. All stakeholders in the forthcoming election must insist on the authorities playing by the rules of the game as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act. The so-called legislation does no good to the stakeholders, including those currently in the saddle. It can only exacerbate political intolerance in the state. The government must not give the impression of desperation to frustrate others in what should be an all-inclusive contests. What is more, the Anambra law can only compound the existing tradition of excessive use of money in the nation’s political system, which the Electoral Act has tried to address but with minimal success. The law seeks to impose additional financial burdens on the contestants, with potentially negative consequence for governance after the election has been won and lost. It is a legislation borne out of mental laziness and certainly not the best way to shore up the government’s revenue base.

The threat of litigation against those who might undermine the law can only heighten the fears in many quarters that it is meant to witch-hunt certain categories of aspirants and their parties and give real advantage to the incumbent governor. This is because all that is needed to get an aspirant into trouble is to paste his/her posters in unapproved places. The provisions of the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution are sufficient guides for the conduct of election in Anambra and any other state. Anambra must not undermine both the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

Aspirants already have more than enough financial challenges, including the logistics to hire  canvassers, facilitate political meetings, and pay delegates to congresses. Then, they must hold rallies and spend money on transportation, rentals, nomination fees, radio and television jingles, and handbills. Section 91 (9) of the Electoral Act stipulates that an individual or other entity shall not donate more than N1 million to any candidate, and Section 91 (10) of the Electoral Act warns that any candidate who knowingly contravenes the preceding section would have committed an offence and, on conviction, is liable, in the case of a presidential election for instance, to a maximum fine of N1 million or imprisonment for a term of 12 months or both. The new legislation in Anambra makes a mockery of the Electoral Act and should be abandoned forthwith.