Across Africa, governments have enacted laws to regulate political party funding, but they continue to overlook one of the most significant channels through which corruption enters politics: the direct flow of money to individual candidates. This regulatory gap poses significant risks of state capture, favoritism, procurement fraud, conflicts of interest, and undue influence over public decision-making. While many countries increasingly require political parties to disclose their finances, the individuals who ultimately contest elections, receive campaign donations, and exercise public power often remain outside meaningful transparency and accountability frameworks.
Elections across Africa are increasingly funded directly through individual candidates rather than centralized party accounts, driving campaign costs to unprecedented levels. Empirical data highlights this escalating financial barrier: contesting a legislative seat costs an estimated US136,084 in Uganda (Kitamirike & Kisaakye, 2020); US182,000 for a parliamentary seat and US350,000 for a senate seat in Kenya (WFD, SCA&NiMD,2021); USD 192,266.3 for a parliamentary seat in Zambia (Nachibinga et al., 2024) and up to US693,000 in Ghana (Nyarko, 2022). Presidential campaigns demand even steeper investments, with estimates in Ghana reaching US$100 million (CDD-Ghana, 2022).
Capitalizing on these soaring costs, wealthy individuals, government contractors, corporate interests, and political patrons frequently bypass party structures to provide cash, vehicles, media access, and logistics directly to office-seekers. Because many African nations lack statutory candidate disclosure laws, an accountability vacuum forms, transforming public office into a transactional marketplace where donations function as capital investments. Once elected, candidates face systemic pressure to deliver returns on these investments through preferential access to state resources, targeted tax exemptions, regulatory concessions, strategic public appointments, or direct influence over policy architecture.
A 2022 study by the Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana) confirmed that campaign financiers explicitly view political donations as investments to secure post-election access to state resources and decision-makers. As one key informant in the study candidly stated: “I finance candidates for president and parliament on the ticket of both the NDC and NPP to ensure I get new contracts and protect the contracts I received from a previous government if there is a change of government. So far, things have been good for me and my business” (p. 45). This unregulated symbiosis between private wealth and public office ultimately reduces state capture to a standard business strategy.
The legal architecture for addressing the problem of candidates not reporting donations and filing returns already exists. Article 7(3) of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)—ratified or acceded to by 53 of Africa’s 54 countries—encourages states to adopt legislative and administrative measures to enhance funding transparency for elected public office seekers. Similarly, 43 African countries have ratified the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCPCC), where Article 10 requires State Parties to incorporate the principle of transparency into electoral campaign financing.
Despite these commitments, many domestic legal frameworks remain focused primarily on political parties while completely overlooking individual candidates. In Ghana, the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574) requires registered political parties to submit audited accounts, yet presidential and parliamentary candidates face no requirement to disclose direct donations or file comprehensive campaign finance returns. Zambia presents a similar challenge: while its Constitution and the yet-to-be enacted Political Parties Bill regulate party finances, they do not impose comprehensive disclosure requirements on individual candidates. Regulating political parties while ignoring candidates is akin to auditing a bank’s headquarters while ignoring the transactions taking place in its branches; much of the money influencing elections simply bypasses party structures entirely, leaving regulators, journalists, and citizens unable to follow the money.
Many established democracies recognize that voters have a right to know who finances those seeking public office. In the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Canada, candidates are legally required to disclose campaign contributions and expenditures, supported by robust audits, public databases, and severe sanctions for non-compliance. France’s National Commission for Campaign Accounts and Political Financing (CNCCFP) can reject filings and the Constitutional Council or election courts declare candidates ineligible, and US federal prosecutors actively pursue criminal cases for serious campaign finance violations.
Contrary to arguments that candidate disclosure is impractical in Africa, several nations have already established foundational legal frameworks. South Africa has begun extending transparency obligations to independent representatives and candidates through reforms to its political finance framework, the Political Party Funding Act (Act 6 of 2018) although implementation continues to evolve. Mauritius takes a post-electoral approach, legally requiring candidates to submit comprehensive election expense returns after the polls close, with non-compliance automatically triggering legal proceedings. Meanwhile, Kenya’s Campaign Financing Act (2013) mandates thorough contribution and expenditure disclosures and even contemplates severe sanctions like candidate disqualification, though persistent political resistance has repeatedly postponed its full implementation. Together, these regional examples demonstrate that the legal mechanics for candidate-level transparency are not only possible but are already active across the continent.
Public disclosure is one of the most effective tools for preventing corruption because it allows voters to detect and assess potential conflicts of interest before elections rather than after public rey to seek preferential treatment if political contributions are publicly known, and candidates may be less willing to accept questionable donations if they know those contributions will face public scrutiny
However, transparency without enforcement risks becoming little more than political theatre. Electoral management bodies, independent registrar of political parties, anti-corruption agencies, and financial intelligence units must have the legal authority, technical capacity, and financial resources necessary to verify candidate disclosures and investigate irregularities. This challenge is particularly critical in African political environments where campaign financing frequently occurs through cash transactions and informal, in-kind support—such as food supplies, vehicles, fuel, accommodation, and direct payments to local organizers. Effective monitoring systems must go beyond bank records to capture these non-monetary contributions, campaign finance data must be published in searchable online databases, and non-compliance must attract meaningful administrative penalties, substantial fines, disqualification from office, or criminal prosecution.
To build on these foundations, Africa’s next generation of political finance reforms must adopt a comprehensive, five-pillar strategy driven by seamless transparency and strict enforcement. First, new frameworks must mandate the full disclosure of all monetary and in-kind contributions received by candidates, ensuring that support funneled through third parties or intermediaries is fully captured. Second, this transparency cannot be a one-time event; reporting obligations must be continuous, requiring disclosures before, during, and after election campaigns. Third, electoral management bodies and independent registrars of political parties and candidates must be legally and financially empowered to conduct independent audits to verify these submissions and investigate discrepancies. Fourth, to democratize oversight, all campaign finance data should be published online in searchable formats, enabling direct scrutiny by journalists, researchers, and citizens. Finally, these rules must be backed by credible, severe sanctions—ranging from administrative fines and candidate disqualification to asset forfeiture and criminal prosecution—to ensure transparency is never reduced to mere political theatre.
The fight against corruption cannot begin only after public officials assume office; it must start at the exact point where money enters politics. Every undisclosed campaign contribution has the potential to create obligations that voters cannot see and institutions cannot monitor. For citizens and civil society, advocating for these reforms is imperative. Opaque campaign funding creates fertile ground for corruption, patronage, and procurement manipulation, relying on public resources to repay private financiers and ultimately diverting scarce funds away from national development priorities. If African countries and non-state actors are serious about preventing state capture and strengthening democratic accountability, candidate campaign finance disclosure must become the next frontier of anti-corruption reform across the continent.
The author, William Nyarko, is the Executive Director of the Africa Centre for International Law and Accountability (ACILA)
