If the electoral law lays down that candidates standing for a European Parliament election cannot spend more than €18,635 in their election campaign, they should adhere to it, irrespective of whether or not the figure is unreasonably low. If it is low, as it undoubtedly is by all standards, then the political parties represented in Parliament should have sought to raise it well in advance of the European Parliament election campaign. No one should be above the law, not even lawmakers. Indeed, lawmakers ought to lead by example if they are to deserve the trust placed in them by those who voted for them in the first place.

So, in the light of all this, what is going to be the position of those who contested last month's European Parliament election and who exceeded the election expenses amount laid down by law? Who is going to ensure that the law was fully adhered to? One unelected candidate has admitted he had overspent by more than €30,000 and others have taken an oath declaring they have not gone beyond the limit in their election campaign spending. The six elected MEPs have turned down a request by The Sunday Times for disclosure of their expenses.

It is clear that, going by the amount of publicity undertaken by candidates individually during the European Parliament election campaign, a number of them have exceeded the limit by a wide margin. The candidates now have till next Friday to declare their expenses to the Electoral Commission, which, one would have logically thought, should have been the organisation responsible to ensure that candidates abide by the requirements of the law.

However, the Electoral Commission has told The Sunday Times that it would not be investigating the matter. It will simply receive the declarations from the parties and publish them in the Government Gazette. If anybody then feels that any declaration made is incorrect, s/he should complain to "the police, or something like that". What kind of a reaction is this? A fuller reply would have been expected from the commission. And why are the two main political parties not spelling out their stand unequivocally over the issue? Arnold Cassola, who contested the election and who is now stepping down as head of Alternattiva Demokratika, said electoral commissions anywhere in the world had the moral and ethical responsibility to oversee the proper conduct of elections.

Two candidates have now filed a judicial protest calling for an investigation into the expenses of those who contested the June election. Claiming that several of the candidates had breached the legal budget limit allowed by law, the two are asking the Attorney General to do his duty and order the Police Commissioner to go into the matter. The plot, as they say, thickens, with one prominent candidate going so far as saying that if the law is implemented as it is supposed to, it would seem that a number of those elected might not be able to serve.

This is not a light matter and both the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party ought to give it the attention it deserves and explain their stand clearly. More importantly, the issue would have to be dealt with to the satisfaction of the voters, whom the parties call to do their duty at each and every election. These now expect the parties and the candidates to do theirs. They also expect the relevant authorities, whoever they may be, to ensure the law is upheld.