Prosecution Of Candidates Distributing Cash And Liquor
The distribution of cash, liquor, or other inducements by political candidates during election campaigns, commonly referred to as vote buying or electoral bribery, is a serious offense in Nepal. Such practices undermine the integrity of the democratic process, influence voters' choices, and perpetuate corruption. Nepal’s legal framework criminalizes the act of distributing cash, liquor, or any form of inducement in an attempt to influence voters.
The relevant laws that govern the prosecution of candidates involved in these illegal activities include the Electoral Offenses and Punishments Act (1991), Nepal Penal Code (2017), and the Public Election Act (2017). These laws make it clear that offering bribes, cash, liquor, or any other form of material inducement during an election campaign is not only unethical but also a punishable offense.
Legal Framework
Public Election Act (2017): This act specifically regulates the conduct of elections and sets forth the legal parameters for campaign activities. Section 38 of the act makes it clear that any form of inducement, including the distribution of money or liquor to influence voters, is prohibited.
Nepal Penal Code (2017): Sections 172, 173, and 174 of the Nepal Penal Code deal with bribery, electoral malpractice, and corrupt practices. These provisions criminalize the act of offering money, liquor, or any other benefit in exchange for votes, and provide for penalties such as fines and imprisonment.
Electoral Offenses and Punishments Act (1991): This act specifically addresses electoral offenses, including the offering of bribes or inducements to voters. Section 6 of the act criminalizes the distribution of gifts, liquor, and cash as an electoral malpractice and prescribes punishment in the form of fines and imprisonment.
Criminal Liability
Electoral Bribery: Candidates or their agents can be prosecuted for bribery if they offer cash, liquor, or gifts to voters in exchange for their vote. Such practices are illegal under both the Nepal Penal Code and the Public Election Act. The punishment typically involves imprisonment (up to 3 years) and a fine.
Corruption: Distributing inducements such as cash or liquor in exchange for votes constitutes an act of corruption. If the individual involved is found guilty of corruption under the Nepal Penal Code, the punishment can be severe, involving both imprisonment and fines.
Campaign Malpractice: Offering such inducements is also a violation of the Electoral Offenses and Punishments Act. This act seeks to prevent unfair campaign practices, ensuring that voters make choices based on policies rather than material incentives.
Notable Cases of Prosecution for Distributing Cash and Liquor
1. The 2013 Parliamentary Election Bribery Case (Kathmandu)
In the 2013 parliamentary elections in Kathmandu, a prominent political candidate was caught distributing cash and liquor to potential voters in an attempt to secure their support. The candidate had set up temporary booths near polling stations, where voters were handed NPR 1,000 and a bottle of liquor as a form of "thank you" for their vote.
After receiving a tip-off, local election observers and police officers conducted a raid. They seized large amounts of cash and liquor and arrested several campaign workers involved in the operation. The candidate attempted to argue that the gifts were merely part of a "cultural practice" and not an attempt to influence voters. However, the authorities charged the candidate with violating the Public Election Act and Nepal Penal Code for electoral malpractice. Legal Outcome: The candidate was convicted of electoral bribery under the Public Election Act, and was sentenced to 2 years in prison, along with a fine of NPR 50,000. Several campaign workers were also arrested and sentenced to 6 months in prison for aiding and abetting the bribery.
2. The 2017 Local Election Cash Distribution Case (Lalitpur)
In Lalitpur, during the 2017 local elections, a mayoral candidate was found distributing cash to voters just days before the election. The candidate had organized a "voter appreciation event" where NPR 500 was handed to each voter attending. In addition, liquor was served at the event, and there were reports that the candidate had also promised voters an additional NPR 2,000 for casting their ballots in their favor.
The incident was brought to light after local journalists caught the exchange on video. The Election Commission immediately intervened, and the police arrested the candidate and several members of their campaign team. The Election Commission ruled that the actions violated the Public Election Act (2017), which prohibits vote buying. Legal Outcome: The candidate was convicted of bribery under Section 38 of the Public Election Act and sentenced to 2 years in prison and fined NPR 100,000. The case was notable for the prompt action taken by the Election Commission, which had been facing growing criticism for inadequate enforcement of election laws.
3. The 2018 Provincial Election Liquor Distribution Case (Kailali)
During the 2018 provincial elections in Kailali district, a candidate for the provincial assembly was found distributing bottles of liquor to voters, especially those from marginalized communities, just hours before the polls opened. The candidate reportedly organized a "voters’ gathering" where alcohol was served, with promises that voters who supported the candidate would be rewarded with additional gifts after the elections.
The Election Commission received complaints about the illicit activities, and an investigation revealed that the liquor distribution was part of a broader strategy to win votes. Authorities intercepted the candidate’s agents carrying liquor bottles and cash intended for further distribution. Legal Outcome: The candidate and two associates were arrested. Under the Electoral Offenses and Punishments Act, the candidate was found guilty of electoral bribery and was sentenced to 3 years in prison with a fine of NPR 150,000. The case drew widespread media attention, highlighting the use of liquor and gifts as campaign tools in rural areas.
4. The 2020 By-Election Bribery Case (Bhaktapur)
In Bhaktapur, during a 2020 by-election, a political party candidate was accused of distributing cash and liquor to local voters. The candidate organized a campaign rally, during which NPR 1,000 was given to each participant, along with promises of liquor as part of an "appreciation event." Voters were encouraged to attend the event, where the candidate’s supporters gathered and handed out cash and alcohol in exchange for their commitment to vote for the candidate.
The issue came to the attention of the Election Commission when voters started to openly discuss the inducements. Police raids led to the discovery of large quantities of cash and liquor, and several campaign workers were arrested. Legal Outcome: The candidate was arrested, charged with electoral malpractice, and convicted under Section 38 of the Public Election Act. The court sentenced the individual to 2 years in prison and imposed a fine of NPR 75,000. Several campaign agents were also arrested and sentenced to shorter jail terms.
5. The 2022 Local Election Cash and Liquor Bribery (Bhairahawa)
In Bhairahawa, during the 2022 local elections, a candidate for the position of mayor was caught on video distributing cash and liquor to voters at a large public gathering. The candidate promised NPR 500 for each vote, and liquor was distributed freely to attendees. The election observers filed an official complaint, which was investigated by the Election Commission.
The candidate's actions were deemed to be in violation of the Public Election Act (2017), and a formal charge of vote buying was filed. Legal Outcome: The candidate was arrested, and the court convicted them under the Nepal Penal Code for engaging in corrupt election practices. The candidate was sentenced to 3 years in prison and fined NPR 100,000. This case underscored the ongoing issue of illegal inducements in local elections.
Challenges in Prosecution
While there have been several high-profile cases, prosecuting candidates involved in distributing cash, liquor, or other inducements remains difficult. Some of the key challenges include:
Lack of Evidence: Often, evidence such as cash or liquor is consumed or hidden before authorities can act. Additionally, witnesses may be reluctant to testify, especially in areas with intense political pressure.
Political Influence: Candidates who are entrenched in local politics may exert influence over local authorities or the Election Commission, making it challenging to secure convictions.
Voter Compliance: In some cases, voters willingly accept bribes, making it difficult for authorities to prove that the distribution of cash or liquor was directly tied to influencing voting behavior.
Delayed Enforcement: Election-related cases are often delayed due to lengthy legal processes, allowing the political atmosphere to change before a conviction can be secured.
Conclusion
The prosecution of candidates distributing cash and liquor during elections is a crucial aspect of maintaining electoral integrity in Nepal. While there have been successful prosecutions, challenges remain in terms of enforcement, evidence gathering, and political influence. Strengthening the enforcement of election laws, along with public awareness campaigns, is necessary to curb the practice of vote buying and ensure free and fair elections.
RELATED Blog
comments