Unregistered political parties can still contest the next election as the obligation to have official status only applies to the party financing law not the General Election Act, according to the dean of the Faculty of Laws.
Kevin Aquilina was commenting when asked about the Labour Party’s delay in officially registering with the Electoral Commission. This necessity stems from the Financing of Political Parties Act, which came into force at the beginning of 2016.
According to the new law only registered parties can nominate candidates for election. Moreover, parties already in existence when the law came into force had until the end of June 2016 to register, in line with article 21.
Though Labour was first to apply within the required time frame, its application was not approved as there were no provisions in its statute governing the eventuality of dissolution.
READ: Labour, PN launch scathing attack on party financing
It took Labour nearly a year to make amends and the statute was only amended last Tuesday during an annual general conference.
Nevertheless, questions were raised on whether this would be enough for the commission to accept its registration on grounds that the party financing law did not cater for a scenario in which the six-month deadline would have elapsed. Also, it was uncertain whether the law would have to be amended, possibly through a legal notice, to allow Labour to be registered and contest the election.
If Labour complies with all the provisions of Part II of the law then it is in compliance with article 21
However, Prof. Aquilina pointed out that the issue in question was not the six-month deadline, that expired in June 2016, but article 10 of the party financing law.
This laid down that the statute of a political party should provide for the manner in which it would be dissolved and the manner in which its assets should be disposed of in such eventuality.
“This, therefore, means that if Labour complies with all the provisions of Part II of the law [registration], as it seems to have already done, then it is in compliance with article 21,” he noted.
In the case of article 10, which did not include a time period for compliance, Prof. Aquilina argued that no changes to the law were required because Labour had only failed to comply with a section of the law that was not time-bound.
As to what would happen were Labour’s registration not be approved before the next election, he said that under the party financing law it would not be allowed to present any candidates.
However, looking at the wider picture, it was a different story in the wake of the different definitions given to a political party in the General Elections Act which, he pointed out, was “not consonant” with the party financing law.
The General Election Act defined a political party as “any person or group of persons contesting the election as one group bearing the same name”.
Prof. Aquilina said different definitions were probably the result of the “defective” drafting of the law, which made no consequential amendment to the General Elections Act to bring both laws in harmony with each other. “This means that even if Labour remains unregistered under the Financing of Political Parties Act, it can still contest the next election,” he said.
Prof. Aquilina continued that even if Labour had not amended its statute to cater for the eventuality of dissolution, the Electoral Commission would still not have been able to impose fines.
That would only be possible if there were specific provisions to regulate any such breach, he noted.