Failing to meet the deadline by December 31, 2024, they have failed to fulfil their obligations under the law and have sought another extension. We understand that unforeseen circumstances could thwart plans, but this serial violation of electoral laws and IECs continued leniency calls for an explanation. The public is owed that much when laws are violated. The IEC has thus far failed to offer any explanations to justify the extension or to justify their failure in enforcing electoral laws following a repeat of the offence.
Speaking to the Standard newspaper, the IEC’s Communications Director states; “Even though these are laws, we prefer to do engagements because it is more practicable than sanctions. The sanction is too harsh.”
Why would one’s preference supersede the sanctions laid out by law after they have been violated? Saying this is disappointing is an understatement. It is not the job of the IEC to negotiate the law on behalf of any party. When violations occur, the stipulations are clear, and we expect enforcement from the referee. As we speak, an issue has been brought before the Supreme Court against the government of The Gambia for violating constitutional provisions in presenting the budget to parliament within the specified timeframe by concerned citizens. What then of the IEC? A body that has the job to prove to all Gambians that they are an independent and impartial body.
The constant disregard for provisions of the law by the NPP and the government it constitutes is a violation of the tenets of the rule of law, and the IEC must not be seen to be complicit in that act by failing to enforce the law.
It is telling that the referee who confirms a violation would declare through its communications Director that the sanctions recommended by law are “too harsh” effectively disregarding the law and in the process shielding violators, which raises concerns about IECs impartiality or its ability to enforce laws when the violator is the party in power.
For transparency purposes, we demand that the IEC offer explanations that justify its extension of the congress deadlines and if such requests for extension were submitted in time. More importantly, we seek clarification on whether the reasons stated in the request for extension meet the standards set forth by law.
According to the Communications Director quoted in The Standard newspaper, “we [the IEC] will send them a reminder to conduct it as soon as practicable.” The IEC also needs to let the public know if they have given a specific deadline by which the legal obligations must be met, or if parties are given free rein to determine when to hold their congress after failing to meet the deadline.
Extension of deadlines is not the issue here; the repeat violation and the lack of explanation or consequence is the query, and we await a detailed explanation from the IEC for the public.
