RE: PETITION

AGAINST THE
CHAIRPERSO
N OF
ELECTORAL
COMMISSION
, MRS.
CHARLOTTE
OSEI
As a point of
order with
regard to the
recent
unfounded
accusations
leveled at Mrs.
Charlotte Osei
in her capacity
as Chairperson
of the EC
Ghana, Mr.
Maxwell
Opoku-
Agyemang is
not a staff
member of the
Commission.
Whilst he
claims to
act on behalf of
Concerned
Staff of the
Commission, he
has not made
clear who those
staff indeed
are. This is of
particular
importance as
he has
previously
introduced
himself at
another forum
as counsel for
Ms. Georgina
Opoku-
Amankwaa, the
deputy
Chairperson
Corporate
Services of the
Commission.
In order for this
to be
considered as a
legitimate
submission on
behalf of the
staff, the names
and signatures
of these
concerned staff
must be
provided in
support of the
so-called
petition
submitted.
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 1:

Madam
Charlotte Osei,
the Chairperson
of the Electoral
Commission on
30
th
 June, 2015
assumed office
as Article 71
appointee
whiles still
holding office
as a Board
Member of
Ghana Re
Insurance, a
public
company
contrary to
Article 44(4) of
the 1992
Constitution.
When the use
was raised, the
PRO of Ghana
Re confirmed
that she only
resigned on
December 5
th
, 2015. This
means that
whiles holding
office as the
Chairperson of
the
Commission,
she was still a
Board Member
of Ghana Re
Insurance.


Response 1:
Ghana
Reinsurance is
a limited
liability
company with
shares held by
the government
of Ghana. A
non-
executive
director position
is not a public
office which
my esteemed
counsel should
well know.

Claim 2:

Mrs. Charlotte
Osei was
appointed as
Chairperson of
Electoral
Commission of
Ghana while
holding office
as Chairperson
of the National
Commission of
Civic
Education
contrary to the
1992
Constitution. In
fact, it was
announced as
her swearing-in
ceremony by
the former
president that
he received her
resignation
from the NCCE
on 29
th
 June, 2017
before the
swearing in.

Response 2:
 Appointment
to the office of
Chairperson of
the Electoral
Commission
took effect on
June 30, 2015.
Resignation as
Chairperson of
the NCCE pre-
dated the
swearing in on
June 30, 2015.
The
Chairperson
therefore
cannot be
accused of
holding two
public positions
simultaneously.
She certainly
did not receive
two salaries for
the month of
June 2015.
Claim 3:

Following her
appointment as
EC chair, Mrs.
Charlotte
compromised
the
independence
and neutrality
of the
Commission by
arranging for
2015 V8
Landcruiser
with
registration
WR 2291-15
from the Office
of the President
for use as
official vehicle
without going
through the
procurement
process or
recourse to the
Commission.

Response 3:
Following her
appointment as
Chairperson,
Mrs. Osei was
allocated a
vehicle by the
Office of the
Chief of Staff.
This is
certainly not a
new practice.
Indeed, the
office of the
Chief of Staff
provided and
continues to
provide
vehicles for
many
government
institutions and
appointees. The
Chairperson
could therefore
not have
compromised
her
independence
or neutrality as
she never
requested nor
lobbied for the
said vehicle.
Indeed, this
flawed
argument
would imply
that the
Commission
receiving
money from
the
Government of
Ghana
compromises
the neutrality
of the
Commission.
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.
Response 4:

The petitioners
would have to
define political
posture which
nearly pushed
the country to
civil war. It is a
witnessed fact
that during the
election, the
Chairperson
was in touch
directly with
the two main
candidates in
the presidential
election in her
capacity as
Returning
Officer
. The then
candidates are
in a position to
confirm this.
The
Chairperson
remained in
continuous
contact with
the hierarchy of
the Ghana
Police Service
and the
Military until
the final
declaration of
results to
ensure a
peaceful
conclusion to
the election. It
is well
documented by
several
observer bodies
that this
election was
safe, free and
fair and the
Chairperson is
directly
acknowledged
as having been
instrumental in
ensuring this.
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 5:
Sory@ Law
was retained on
the basis of a
decision of the
Commission
taken at a
Commission
meeting of
September
2015. It was
made clear at
the meeting
that fees for
litigation
related work
cannot be
agreed ahead as
it would
depend on the
complexity of
each case and
the court where
a case was
filed. For
instance,
Supreme Court
cases are
usually billed
higher than
cases
conducted at
the High Court.
It was therefore
the function of
the Chairperson
to refer all
incoming law
suits to
Sory@Law on
the basis of the
Commissions
decision. It was
the function of
the Deputy
Chair F/A to
negotiate the
fees for each
matter referred
with
Sory@Law.
Indeed, all bills
submitted by
Messrs.
Sory@Law for
over ten cases
referred in
2015/2016
remain unpaid.
If it is true that
the Chairperson
unilaterally
retained
Sory@Law,
members of the
Commission
including the
two Deputy
Chairpersons
would clearly
have to explain
the basis for
meetings held
between the
entire
Commission
and Lawyer T.
Sory, and other
meetings
between
management
and executive
management
staff, and staff
of Sory@Law
to discuss
pending cases.
Claim 6:

The
Commission
signed a
contract with
Super Tech
Limited (STL)
on the premise
that the Voters
Registration
Exercise was
going to be
electoral area
based.
Upon
assumption of
office as the
Chairperson of
the
Commission,
Mrs. Charlotte
Osei
unilaterally
abrogated the
said contract
without
recourse to the
same
Commission
that approved
the earlier
version. She
single handedly
renegotiated
the contract
with the vendor
without
involvement of
the members of
the
Commission
not even the
deputies. She
then awarded
the contract to
the tune of
$21,999, 592
without going
through tender
contrary to the
Public
Procurement
Act. The
Chairperson
reawarded
these contracts
without seeking
approval from
the
Commission.
In the opinion
of the
Commission,
these contracts
could have
been negotiated
further down if
members of the
Commission
had been
involved. This
is because the
change in the
2016 voters
registration
process
required
automatic
reduction in
these contracts.

1.
Response 6:
The two
Deputy
Chairpersons
signed 2
contracts with
STL on 6 May
2015 for $22.3
(BVR) and
$16.4m (BVD)
respectively
(copies
attached and
marked
CO6A).
Letters were
written to PPA
on 15 May
2015 (copies
attached and
marked CO6B)
seeking
permission for
sole sourcing
AFTER
the contracts
had been
signed. The
contracts
contained no
price break
down and were
signed against
the 2016
budget of the
Commission
which was
unknown at the
time and not
even presented
to Parliament
for approval.
The
procurement
department of
the
Commission
had no
knowledge of
the execution
of the contracts
(Please see
CO6C
attached). The
Chairperson
informed the
Deputy
Chairpersons of
the many
breaches of law
in connection
with these
contracts. The
Deputy Chair
Ops confirmed
the illegalities
in an email and
also confessed
his lack of
knowledge of
procurement
processes
(please see
CO6D
attached). The
Chairperson
abrogated the
contracts in
August 2015
and requested
the Finance
department to
re-negotiate
with STL and
rectify the
contract award
process. Upon
receipt of the
consent of the
PPA to sole
sourcing, she
engaged
consultants to
advise the
Commission on
the real needs
of the
Commission
regarding the
BVR contract
and review the
proposals
submitted by
STL. The
Consultants
confirmed that
the
Commission
should spend a
maximum of
$7.2m
(attached as
CO6E). The
Chairperson
signed a new
contract with
STL for the
BVR services
for the 2016
elections for
$3.9m
(attached as
CO6F)
Interestingly,
STL has not
complained
about the
abrogation of
the contracts. It
is amazing that
persons, who
schemed to
cause loss to
the state, flout
procurement
laws with
impunity, can
then accuse
another of
acting illegally.
When the first
contracts were
signed, no one
in the
Commission
was involved in
the
negotiations.
Quite
surprisingly, it
is now alleged
that their
involvement
would have
resulted in
better pricing
for the
Commission.
Claim 7:

As part of
compromising
her
independence
and neutrality,
Mrs. Charlotte
Osei claimed
that the
Electoral
Commission
has been
allocated a new
building for use
as office
complex
without the
approval of the
Commission.
The 7 member
Commission
has not at any
point in time
formally
requested for
any office
allocation since
the
Commission
sees nothing
wrong the
current office.
With the
Chairpersons
insatiable
demand of
affluence and
flamboyance,
she unilaterally