[307] This prohibition is clearly what Article 81(e)(ii) refers to as “improper influence.” In our view, the rationale behind this prohibition, in the context of this case is that whatever achievements the current government may have made, resulting from expenditure of public funds, should not be taken advantage of by the government as a campaign tool. [308] Further, Section 14(1) and (2) of the Election Offences Act provides: (1) Except as authorized under this Act or any other written law, a candidate, referendum committee or other person shall not use public resources for the purpose of campaigning during an election or a referendum. (2) No government shall publish any advertisements of achievements of respective government either in the print media, electronic media, or by way of banners or hoardings in public places during the election period. [309] In response to the allegations of ‘improper influence’ and misuse of public resources, the 3rd respondent submitted that the petitioners had not adduced evidence showing the particulars of such sponsorship and that in any case, it is the mandate of the Presidential Delivery Unit to enhance the accountability of a government to its citizens by availing any information relating to ongoing projects. [310] We note in the above regard that the 1st petitioner has not attached any material evidence to support his proposition. That being the case, we Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            130  |  P a g e