Defending its move to erase the impugned article 91 (E) from the Representation of the People Order (RPO), 2009, the Election Commission has said it will enjoy the authority to cancel the candidature of any election contestant for valid ground even after the deletion of the article. “Deleting the article 91E doesn’t mean snatching the authority of the Commission to cancel the candidature of a candidate since the same authority is there in article 91A of the RPO,” the EC said in a statement singed by EC secretary Dr Mohammad Sadik on Tuesday. It said the article was not in the RPO before 2008, and it was incorporated by an Ordinance promulgated in the same year that contradicts the article 19 of the RPO. According to the article 91 (E), “If a candidate engages in any serious illegal activities or violates any provisions of the RPO, its Rules or Code of Conduct for which he may be disqualified to be elected as a member, then the EC may cancel the candidature of the candidate and election will be held; if there are more than one candidate among the remaining candidates, but if only one candidate remains after the cancellation of the candidature, then the election will be rescheduled afresh. “ But the last part of the article is contradictory to the provision in article 19, that says “when one candidate is left, he is declared elected uncontested, which is almost a universal practice followed in most elections in many democratic countries.” In the scenario, the existing lone candidate for no fault gets heavy penalty amounting to cancellation of his candidature and incurring double cost since he has to contest again in a fresh election with new candidates and also the candidate whose candidature had been cancelled earlier. Besides, the article 91E is not enforceable or implementable as there are specific criteria for disqualification of a candidate stated in article 66 of the Constitution and also in article 12(1) of the RPO as well as there are specific punishments provided in Chapter VI of the RPO for violation of electoral laws and codes. There was no single instance of exercising such authority provided in the article 91 (E) in the last general election held on December 29, 2008. “Because of self-contradictory provisions in article 91E it was considered whether it should be removed from the RPO,” it says. About deployment of armed forces during the elections, the EC said the question comes up frequently. In fact, there was no provision in the RPO prior to 2001 specifically referring to the armed forces. In spite of that from the very beginning since 1973 in all the parliamentary elections, members of the armed forces were deployed across the country in aid of civil administration to maintain law and order during the election period. Defense services were included in the definition of law enforcing agency by the 2001 Ordinance, but deleted from the RPO in 2009. There after the last Commission successfully conducted Narayangonj and Comilla City Corporation elections, without the deployment of the armed forces. The previous Commission did not include the defence services in the definition of law enforcing agency in their RPO amendment proposals, which they finalised after two rounds of consultations with various stakeholders. They left the provision as it was in the RPO amendment Act of 2009. The incumbent Commission did not make any change, the EC statement claimed. On proposals for increasing the ceiling of election expenditure from Tk 15 Lakh to Tk 25 lakh and security deposit money from Tk 10,000 to Tk 20,000 for a candidate in the parliamentary election, the current commission said the previous Commission left the two proposals. They did not change it. The Commission came up with a long statement in its bid to dispel all confusions over the EC’s move on the RPO reform in the wake of widespread criticism from different quarters. -UNB
