The Electoral Commission is set up in terms of the Constitution. It is an autonomous body and is not subjected to the direction or control of any other person or authority.
In the past, it used to come into the picture once every five years or so, organising general elections though its work – including the revision of electoral boundaries – kept it busy. The advent of local councils and Malta’s accession to the European Union meant more work for it in the form of local and European elections. Not to mention the occasional referendum, like the one on EU membership in 2003, the introduction of divorce in 2011 and spring hunting in 2015.
More recently, it was granted another big responsibility under the Financing of Political Parties Act. It has a number of tasks to perform in terms of this law, among them controlling donations made to registered parties. The Commission is empowered by law to investigate when it deems it necessary and demand all the information it may require from any political party, individual, legal person, body, including any financial institution and or any telecommunication service provider in possession of such information to determine the source of any donation received by a political party.
The Commission may, of course, be privy to information the public does not have but John Citizen cannot be blamed if he wonders whether two particular donations made to the Nationalist Party recently should be subjected to such an investigation.
In a fundraising event last month, the party in Opposition raised more than €600,000. The sum included €141,000 presented by one of the party’s two deputy leaders, Robert Arrigo, and €56,000 by general secretary Clyde Puli. This gave rise to questions because the law bars political parties from receiving donations above €25,000 “during one calendar year from the same source”.
The PN insists everything was in order because all donations came from multiple sources. A spokesman said no single donation exceeded the limit set by law and that receipts were issued to every donor for each contribution made.
That may be the case but the best way to put minds at rest is to be transparent and only a thorough investigation by the Electoral Commission, in this case, can suffice. The Commission may well have started looking into the matter but, if so, the public is unaware of it and questions sent by this newspaper remain unanswered.
In view of the ‘explanation’ made by the PN spokesman about the big donations coming from different sources, an investigation by the Commission becomes even more relevant when considering a particular provision in the law. This lays down that: “Whosoever maliciously, with intent to conceal the origin and amounts of donations, divides a donation into smaller amounts… shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to an administrative fine not exceeding €10,000.”
In this case, it is unlikely that the Labour Party would be making many noises about the matter or cry foul for the simple reason that people who live in glass houses do not usually throw stones. Here, the two main political parties are more likely to be found scratching each other’s back. And this may be another reason why supposedly independent and autonomous bodies often look the other way.