Professional Documents
Culture Documents
With regard to the baseless allegations, below is a detailed response on all points
raised with supporting documentation, which it is noted, Mr. Maxwell Opoku-
Agyemang and his fictitious petitioners have failed to provide.
Claim 4: The political posture of the Chairperson prior to the conduct of the 2016
General Election nearly pushed Ghana to the precipices. But for the action of
technical and competent staff of the Commission, she could have plunged this
country into civil war.
Claim 5: Mrs. Charlotte Osei, without recourse to the Commission engaged the
Service of lawyers Sorry@law without going through the procurement process.
This service engagement goes contrary to the Public Procurement Act. As at now,
there is no formal contractual arrangement between the Commission and the
Solicitors. The basis of fees computation for services rendered by these lawyers still
remains unknown.
Response 7: The Chairperson informed the Commission in late 2015 that the
Commission had requested new office premises from the Presidency to house
the new secretariat of the Association of African Election Authorities (AAEA)
after Ghana had been voted as a permanent secretariat of the AAEA in July 2015
with responsibility to provide office space for the AAEA. In February 2016, at a
Commission meeting (extract of minutes attached as CO7A), members were
informed that Government had allocated a new office building to the Commission
through the office of the Chief of Staff. Members were further informed that the
new office was a new build and would only require partitioning and all
commissioners were encouraged to visit the new premises. The Chairperson
subsequently visited the new site with the two Deputy Chairpersons and a
commission member, all of who were very excited by the new office. The
Chairperson has no control over the office of the Chief of Staff or the Presidency
and clearly cannot obtain the permission of the Commission if a new office is
allocated to the Commission. The current offices have major structural defects,
parts of the roof are collapsing, significant leakages in most offices, damp and
mouldy walls, electrical defects have been discovered and pointed out by the Fire
Service for urgent attention (please see CO7B attached), the building lacks
disability access, is decrepit and outdated, requiring extensive work and expense
to make it habitable and reflective of the office of the Electoral Commission. The
building houses precious lives of staff of the Commission and sensitive national
assets such as the largest database of Ghanaians currently in the country. The
current office space is not suitable by any standards.
With regard to the contract for partitioning of the 8-floor office building, the
procurement laws were scrupulously followed. Copies of the Tender evaluation
report is attached and marked CO7C. Directors of the Commission at the head
office (Finance, HR, IT and Electoral Services), and an external consultant were
members of the evaluation panel. The bid submitted by Inocon Limited was the
lowest of the three bids and was recommended to the Chairperson for approval.
The Chairperson of the Commission is not and has never been a member of the
tender evaluation committee and cannot therefore, influence the award of the
contract. The Chairperson is the only one authorised by the policies of the
Commission to sign contracts (copy of policy attached and marked CO7D). In
any case, for the said contract that is allegedly unknown to the Commission,
payment was approved and paid by the Deputy Chairperson CS without the
knowledge and authorization of the Chairperson.
Response 8: A contract was awarded for the construction of 100 district offices
to Messrs Clicotech and Messrs. Cads Contracts & Services on a 58-42 basis.
Although Messrs Cads Contracts was the only company that met all the criteria at
the Entity Tender Committee level (please see document marked CO8A), the
tender evaluation committee recommended that they be awarded 42% of the
contract for stated reasons. The Chairperson followed in total, the
recommendations of the evaluation panel (copy attached and marked CO8B) in
awarding the contract. In following the recommendation, there was clearly no
wrongdoing or alleged cronyism by the Chairperson. If the Chairperson intended
to award the contract to Cads Contracts based on cronyism, then the same
Chairperson would not have given Clicotech Limited an extended time (with
consent of the other bidders) to submit its audited accounts to enable it meet the
tender requirements.
The Consultant engaged by the Commission has been actively involved in the
management of the contract. He has visited all the project sites, written to
confirm work done by both contractors and to endorse the certificates raised by
both contractors. The consultant has not raised any issues of impropriety on the
contract. Indeed, the consultant has recently written a letter to the Chairperson
reminding her of the need to honour payment obligations to the contractors as
per the terms of the contract. Incidentally, on these same contracts, mobilization
payments were made to both contractors in December 2016, without the
knowledge and approval of the Chairperson. These are matters of grave financial
impropriety that require further investigation.
Claim 9: The Chairperson has brought the Commissions name into disrepute for
single handedly petitioning EOCO on an alleged misappropriation of staff
endowment fund for malicious reasons. This is because the issue has come before
the entire Commission for redress. The decision to go to EOCO was not that of the
Commission but characteristically unilateral decision by the Chairperson.
Response 9: The Chairperson has NOT submitted a petition to EOCO on the
Endowment Fund issue. However, the Chairperson believes that EOCO is the
right institution being a fact finding body, to investigate the issue of what the
endowment fund contributions of staff, which were not paid into the Fund for
eight months in 2014 were used for. This matter has been before the
Commission since February 2015 and has not been resolved. A memo sent by the
Chairperson on December 1, 2015 on the issue has not been responded to as of
today. The vouchers indicating the application of the Funds have not been
submitted inspite of repeated requests by the Chairperson and repeated claims
by the deputy Chairperson of their availability. The Commission cannot by itself,
use 2017 funds released by the Ministry of Finance, to repay obligations incurred
in 2014, with no documentation and not recorded in the audit report of 2014 as
an outstanding obligation, without the report of a separate institution like EOCO.
If there has been any embarrassment to the Commission, it is based on the
failure to keep proper accounting records in the matter.
Claim 10: The Commission procured grant from USAID as part of the support of
the 2016 General Election. This facility was signed by the then Minister of Finance.
By Article 175 of the 1992 Constitution and in line with Section 5 of the Financial
Administration Act, 2003 (Act 654), these grants constitute Public Funds. As part of
the implementation of this grant the Chairperson, Mrs. Charlotte Osei, without the
Commissions approval unilaterally recruited Personal Assistant and a
Communication Officer and paid them $1,500 and $2,500 United States Dollars
respectively. This was done without clearance from the Ministry of Finance.
Response 10: The Chairperson and the Commission did not require the
permission of the Ministry of Finance to utilize funds agreed with the USAID in
the manner agreed by USAID in the Funding contract. All expenditure of donor
funds is carried out in line with the policies of the donor agency. The petitioners
would have to provide further proof of this requirement and show how in
disbursement of other donor funds the Commission has sought the permission of
the Ministry of Finance. The Chairperson followed the rules of the funding
agency to the letter. The Chairperson does not need the approval of the
Commission to appoint temporary staff and consultants deemed necessary and
agreed in the Grant letter.
Claim 11: The Chairperson unilaterally transferred District Electoral Officers she
perceived to be pro-NPP to deprived areas prior to the 2016 general elections
without the knowledge of the Commission contrary to administrative procedures.
Response 11: The petitioners would have to show the basis for the perception
that the district electoral officers transferred were pro a certain political party.
They would also what action was taken and should have been taken against
district electoral officers performing key functions and showing party biases as
they allege. These officers were transferred because of threats made by political
actors on their activities, which were likely to compromise the neutrality of the
commission and the integrity of the elections.
Claim 12: Since her assumption of office, the Chairperson has polarized the
Commission along political lines. Her political posture prior to the 2016 General
Election is evidence for public judgment.
Response 12: This is palpably untrue. Indeed, the Chairperson assumed office in
a very politically polarized environment and has worked very hard with staff,
staff associations and unions to create a healthier work environment.
Claim 13: The leadership of Mrs. Charlotte Osei has brought about an irreversible
disunity among Commission Members to the extent that she is not on speaking
terms with the deputies and other Commission members. There is total breakdown
of administrative structures of the Commission.
Response 13. Mrs. Osei is on speaking terms with everyone at the Commission.
The Deputy Chairpersons have chosen to be grossly insubordinate and rude and
there is ample documented evidence to support this. Deputies take managerial
decisions and implement same without the knowledge of the Chairperson;
threaten staff who have direct dealings with the Chairperson; take their leave
without the approval of the chairperson and implement major administrative
and operational decisions without the knowledge of the Chairperson. Please see
documents attached and marked CO13A. It would be helpful for our fictitious
petitioners to provide evidence to the contrary.
Claim 14: Mrs. Charlotte Osei persistently antagonized the then opposition, NPP
prior to the 2016 General Elections to the extent she never met any of the
leadership who sought audience with her to discuss issues of concern. This contrary
to her over patronage of the then ruling NDC including her attendance of Cabinet
Meetings.
Mrs Osei has NEVER attended a cabinet meeting and shown absolutely no
patronage to the NDC. The petitioners would be compelled to provide evidence
in support of these allegations.
Claim 15: Mrs. Charlotte Osei frequently travels out of the jurisdiction without
informing either the Commission or any of her deputies.
Response 15: The Chairperson does not report to the two deputies. These are
deputies who constantly show insubordination, do not come to work or come to
work when they feel like, go on leave and travel without the knowledge and
approval of the Chairperson. They clearly do not respect their office or their role
within the organisation. Corporate governance procedures are clearly
disregarded in their operational behavior.
Claim 16: Mrs. Charlotte Osei harbored personal vendetta against a vendor by
name Messrs Buck Press Limited on the premise that he belongs to NPP. She
categorically made this statement in an interview with BBC. In view of this, she
unilaterally without recourse to the Commission removed the companys name
from the list of vendors already approved by PPA to do business contrary to the
Public Procurement Act.
Response 16: The BBC interview transcripts are available and would show that
Mrs. Osei never made any comments which showed a personal vendetta against
Messrs. Buck Press or mentioned his party affiliation which is unknown to her.
The petitioners would be required to provide documentary evidence of these
allegations.
Claim 17: The Chairperson, Mrs. Charlotte Osei assuming Office has consistently
attempted to demonise her predecessor, Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan and taking steps
to de-recognise the legacy of her predecessor.
Response 17: The Chairperson has always shown the highest levels of respect
and admiration for her predecessor and she maintains a very warm relationship
with Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan and his family. Indeed, in most interviews she has
granted, she has always paid tribute to the excellent legacy left by her
predecessor particularly in the area of putting in place structures that support
and enhance credible and transparent elections. In any case, assuming without
admitting that this allegation was true, how does this become a ground for
impeachment under the 1992 Constitution of Ghana?
Claim 18: Mrs. Charlotte Osei has consistently approved for payment of $76,000
United States Dollars to an IT company, Dream Oval Limited without contract
contrary to the Financial Administration Act.
Response 18: The contract with Dream Oval was funded by the USAID and
awarded in line with USAID procurement policies. The USAID has not
complained of any breaches of policies and has agreed to pay the additional costs
necessitated by the additional security infrastructure that Dream Oval had to put
in place for the Commissions website. There has been no breach of any law or
policy put in place by USAID with regard to this matter. This is therefore, another
baseless allegation founded on mischievous imaginations.
Claim 20: The Chairperson is managerially and administratively inept. She lacks
managerial experience or capacity and knowledge of corporate governance
structures and regulatory compliance. She has no respect for the organizational
structure of the Commission to the extent that she deals directly with directors and
senior officers without recourse to the deputies. The Chairperson lacks the
requisite managerial skills in public administration. This point needs no elucidation
since the current leadership style is publicly known.
Financial statements and bank statements are not submitted to the Chairperson
or the Commission. Budgets and audit queries are not formally presented to the
Chairperson or the Commission. Approvals and payments are made on the blind
side of the chairperson and in excess of approved limits. The attempts by the
Chairperson to ensure proper structures and financial management systems
have led to disputes with the deputy Chairpersons and staff who benefit
financially and illegally from the chaos. The Chairperson refuses to superintend a
system that engenders endemic corruption and poor administrative structures.
It should be noted that all these actions amounting to financial malfeasance and
impropriety would be documented and submitted to the requisite authority for
investigations.
Claim 21: The Chairperson had poor human relations not befitting of any leader
in public space.
Response 21: The Chairperson has a warm and friendly relationship with all
staff and maintains an open door policy. The Chairperson only has difficulties
with staff who do not want to see the progress of the Commission and want to
continue to preserve their illegal commercial kingdoms for personal gain within
the Commission.
A work culture that permits staff to steal with such boldness is extremely
unfortunate and cannot be allowed to continue.
Claim 22: The Chairperson has submitted an estimate of over GHS1million for the
renovation of the official bungalow for the Chairperson without recourse to the
Commission or appropriate staff in the Commission.
Response 22: The estimate for renovation of a house indicates the level of work
required to be done in the house. It is not a contract and there is no breach of the
law occasioned by submitting an estimate. It is in fact the Deputy Chair Ops that
is in breach of process reflected in his actions in 2015 when without recourse to
the Chairperson, the Deputy Chair Ops verbally authorized a Director to
undertake repairs to the Chairmans official residence for the use of the said
Director.
Upon submission of the estimate of works done, it would have been expected
that the Deputy Chair F/A who oversees administration, would have started a
proper procurement process for the renovation of the Chairpersons residence.
To date, no work has been initiated and the Chairperson is still unable to move
into the official residence two years after appointment. In the same vein, the
Chairperson was never provided with an office three months after joining the
Commission. She had to initiate the moves herself to get suitable office premises
and furnish it personally.
Claim 23: The Chairperson has constituted herself into the Commissions Tender
Review Committee contrary to the Public Procurement Act. She singularly chairs
the Entity Tender Committee and Tender Review Committee at the same time. This
puts her into conflict of interest position and this is a clear breach of the public
Procurement Act.
Claim 24: The chairperson since assumption of office does not know any regional
or district of the Electoral Commission. She has blatantly refused to visit any of the
offices of the Commission citing security reasons. Surprisingly, since her assumption
to duty, she has never visited any of the offices of the deputies.
Response 24: As with all large organizations, the Chairperson in her leadership
is required to prioritize major issues around clear priorities within the
Commission. At the time of the appointment of the Chairperson, the strategic and
organizational priorities did not allow for significant local travel to the regions.
Security has never been a cited reason for the failure to travel and proof of this
would be requested from the petitioners. As with all large organisations, the
Chairperson is required to allow the responsible leadership to keep her informed
of the needs of the organisation whilst she may not personally be able to visit
every office it is with this knowledge of the deplorable state of district and
regional offices, and in some cases, no district offices at all, that the Chairperson
commissioned the construction of 100 district offices due to be completed this
year.
The Chairperson has visited the offices of her deputies. In any case, it is baffling
why this issue should be of major concern to the concerned staff of the
Commission, and be elevated to an impeachable offence and of greater
importance to staff than the security of their retirement funds and their general
well being.
Claim 25: On the issue of Staff Endowment Fund she blatantly refused to meet the
Senior Staff Association and the Union in the presence of the deputies and by
extension the Commission. The allegations against the Deputy Commissioners and
other staff have not been brought before the Commission only to surface at EOCO.
The Chairperson cause the said auditing of the Endowment Fund without recourse
to the Commission. The said audit report was not brought to the attention of the
relevant persons for their comments or responses in line with best practice of
auditing standards.
Response 25: The Chairperson has had many, many meetings with the Senior
Staff Association (SSA) and Union executives on the issue of the endowment
fund. The president of the SSA Mr. Joseph Addo Boateng and Mr. Charles Botchey,
union chair can confirm this. Indeed, she has never refused a meeting with the
two bodies to discuss the endowment fund issue. The staff bodies are aware of
her tireless efforts to resolve the issues regarding the endowment fund monies
since November 2015. The Chairperson wrote letters to retired Director of
Finance and Chief Accountant in February 2016 seeking their input towards a
resolution of the issue. Further, she commissioned an internal audit report into
the Fund in March 2016. These have all yielded no conclusions, as the payment
vouchers to support the fact that the endowment fund monies were used for
operational purposes were never provided.
Claim 26: The Chairperson has lost popularity, legitimacy and touch with the
staff and some members of the Commission. She has failed to manage the
Commission as a corporate entity.
Claim 27: The Chairperson, Mrs. Charlotte Osei unilaterally awarded a contract
of about $25,000 to a South African company, Quazar Limited to change and
redevelop the Commissions logo under the guise of rebranding without going to
tender contrary to the Public Procurement Act.
Response 27: The decision to prepare a strategic plan and rebrand the
Commission was a decision of the full commission at a meeting. Quazar was
selected out of three companies and contracted by the UNDP to assist the
Commission complete its Strategic Plan and rebranding. The UNDP was very
happy with the services of Quazar and the UNDP has not submitted any
complaints of any breaches in the award of contract process. Indeed,
representatives of Quazar had several meetings and workshops with senior staff
and members of the Commission. It is therefore unclear the basis for the
complaints that the Chairperson unilaterally engaged the services of Quazar. In
addition, Quazar was not paid US25,000. Quazar was paid about GHS23,000 as
supported by the documents attached and marked CO27A. It would be most
helpful if the petitioners would get basic facts right.
FURTHER PARTICULARS
28. It is worth pointing out, that while the Chairperson is persistently accused of
arrogance and taking unilateral decisions, there is ample evidence of extreme
arrogance, ineptitude and blatant breaches of the law by the deputy
Chairpersons. A few examples will suffice here:
I. The Deputy Chairperson F/A has signed contracts worth over GHS40m
without knowledge and authorization of the Chairperson between July-
September 2015. Payments were also made on these contracts in excess
of her approval limits and again, without the knowledge and
authorization of the Chairperson. This is illegal, criminal and a breach of
the policies of the Commission and the laws of Ghana. The supporting
documents would be submitted to the relevant investigative agencies for
their further action.
II. In June 2017, the annual leave of Deputy Chair Operations was approved
by the Deputy Chair CS without recourse to the Chairperson and signed
on behalf of Chairperson by Deputy Chair CS while she herself was on
leave. This is poor knowledge of corporate governance and managerial
ineptitude. Indeed, the Deputy Chairperson CS has arrogated to herself
the powers of the Chairperson, convening commission meetings and
taking other ultra vires decisions in clear breach of the Law.
III. The Deputy Chair CS went on an unauthorised leave from May 19 - June
19 2017 without notice to the Chairperson and without prior approval. A
sick leave note was subsequently submitted to the Director of HR.
V. Under the supervision of the Deputy Chair CS, staff in the finance
department have flouted many financial regulations, amended bank
mandates, and made many unauthorized payments beyond their approval
levels and without the knowledge of the Chairperson. Again, supporting
documents would be submitted to the appropriate agencies for further
investigation.
VI. The poor financial management systems within the Commission are
systemic. In some cases, Commission funds are paid into personal
accounts of staff members in the region.
VIII. The Deputy Chair Ops has persistently effected illegal vote transfers from
his office on the Voter management System in clear breach of the law and
operational policies of the Commission. Such actions have major
implications for the integrity of the work of the Commission and
constitute abuse of office.
IX. The Deputy Chair Operations collected above funds GHS 6m (Six million
Ghana cedis) in cash from political parties for the organization of party
primaries without recourse to the structures of the Commission, without
the involvement of the finance department of the Commission. Political
party primaries were treated as a private commercial project by the
Deputy Chair Ops, with funds paid directly into the personal accounts of
key staff for functions to be performed for party primaries. An internal
audit report highlighting widespread malfeasance in the conduct of party
primaries under the supervision of the Deputy Chair Operations is
attached and marked CO28. This situation cannot be allowed to continue.
It is clear from the manner in which these allegations have been laid in the
court of public opinion based on no facts and only malicious intent of persons
protecting corrupt and unscrupulous acts. These acts enrich solely the
practitioners of these acts, and there is no intent to abide by the law of the land
nor truly be of service to the people of Ghana. There is clearly, no established
case of fraud or abuse of office made against the Chairperson. The public purse,
should be, and must be protected even at the EC. The independence granted the
Commission under the Constitution does not mean immunity to flout all the
financial laws of Ghana, waste public funds and unlawfully enrich corrupt public
officials.
The role of the EC is to enable the citizens to participate in free and fair elections
it has and will always remain the guiding principle of the Chairperson. It is only
those that are eager to subvert the law and engage in illegal actions that will not
support this mandate in its implementation and vision of creating a World Class
Electoral Commission.