The Centre for Democracy and Dialogue (CDD) has called for clearer and more precise definitions of electoral offences in its submission to the parliamentary committee considering the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2026.
The CDD supports the Bill’s objective of rationalising the electoral offence framework but says the proposed definitions of “corrupt electoral practice” and “illegal electoral practice” are circular and should be redrafted.
The organisation said the definitions currently require readers to refer back and forth between the offence definitions and penalty provisions to determine what conduct constitutes an offence.
Under the Bill, an offence may fall within the definition of a corrupt electoral practice because its penalty is prescribed under proposed Section 135A(1), while Section 135A(1) applies because the conduct is classified as a corrupt electoral practice.
The CDD said this creates unnecessary uncertainty in determining criminal liability.
“Criminal and quasi-criminal legislation should define liability with sufficient precision that a person can identify the prohibited conduct and the applicable consequence from the statute itself.”
