Prospective aspirants preparing to contest internal elections in the North Dayi Constituency have been cautioned to be wary of individuals allegedly operating as political “contractors” who promise to secure delegates for candidates in exchange for large sums of money.
Concerns have emerged over what some party members describe as a growing scheme in which individuals approach aspiring candidates, claiming they have the ability to influence or mobilise delegates to vote for particular candidates.
Prominent among such persons is Kotto Daniel, identified as the North Dayi Constituency Secretary who most people alleged is the leader of that syndicate.
According to allegations circulating within the constituency, such individuals demand substantial financial payments from aspirants on the basis that the money will be used to “secure” or influence delegates ahead of the election.
The complainants, however, allege that after receiving the money, some of these political contractors either fail to deliver the promised support or simply disappear, leaving aspirants to bear significant financial losses.
The allegations have triggered calls for aspirants to exercise extreme caution and conduct proper checks before handing over money to individuals claiming to have control over delegates.
At the centre of the latest concerns is Kotto Daniel, North Dayi Constituency Secretary, who has been accused by some individuals within the constituency of allegedly soliciting money from multiple prospective aspirants with promises of influencing delegates.
The allegations suggest that such dealings may create the false impression among aspirants that they have secured the support of particular delegates, while the delegates themselves may not even be aware of any financial arrangement involving their names.
Some concerned party members therefore argue that the practice, if established, could undermine the credibility of internal elections and compromise the independence of delegates.
They are consequently calling on aspirants not to allow themselves to be pressured into paying individuals who claim they can deliver predetermined numbers of delegates.
The concerns also extend to delegates, who are being urged to reject any attempt to trade their votes or allow their names to be used in financial arrangements without their knowledge or consent.
Those raising the alarm say the alleged activities are not only financially harmful to aspirants but could also damage trust within constituency party structures.
They contend that political contests should be based on the policies, credibility, competence and grassroots support of candidates rather than the ability of intermediaries to collect money on the promise of delivering delegates.
There are also calls for party authorities to investigate complaints of this nature and establish mechanisms through which aspirants can report suspected attempts to manipulate internal elections through financial inducements.
The individuals making the allegations have indicated that they may release further information, including the names of persons they claim are involved in such activities.
Until supporting evidence is independently verified and the individuals accused are given an opportunity to respond, the allegations remain unproven.
Nevertheless, the controversy has raised an important warning for prospective candidates: any individual claiming to have “bought” or secured delegates on an aspirant’s behalf should be subjected to careful scrutiny before any money changes hands.
The warning to delegates is equally important: your vote is yours, and no intermediary should be allowed to claim ownership or control over it.
