By: Evans Aziamor -Mensah
[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hen the news of the impeachment petition by some anonymous persons at the Electoral Commission broke, I decided not to wade into the debate either by dismissing their claims out rightly or by condemning the Chairperson of the Commission in whose person the claims have been made.
The lawyers, as usual, rose to the front with the debate as to whether [ads1]the petition was filed through the appropriate legal requirement in the face of the fact that the content of the petition has been made available to the Public. This they argue that the Supreme Court in the Anas versus the Justice Paul Uter Derry case ruled that it was inappropriate for the Content of a petition of that kind to be made available to the public and that it violates Article 146(8) which stipulates that: All proceedings under this article shall be held in camera and the Justice or Chairman against whom the petition is made is entitled to be heard in his defence by himself or by a lawyer or other expert of his choice.
A private legal practitioner, Justice Sai also held the view that a petition of this nature can’t be “faceless” because Article 146(3) says:
“If the President receives a petition for the removal of Justice of a Superior Court other than the Chief Justice or for the removal of the Chairman of a Regional Tribunal, he shall refer the petition to the Chief Justice, who shall determine whether there is a prima facie case.”
In other words, unless a President “receives” a petition, the process cannot start. Obviously, the President cannot “receive” a petition from herself. This, therefore, may give us a deep insight into whether the ascertainment of the initiator is necessary. In this regard, we may call un aid our second claim which states that “the existence of an initiator is necessary where the investigating machinery is not empowered to self-initiate its own processes.”
He therefore thought that the ascertainment of the existence of the initiator is a prerequisite to the competence of the petition.
I am not a lawyer so I can’t delve much into the legality or otherwise of the petition. I am, however, concerned with the 28 point response of the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission to the ” faceless” petition stating among other things insubordination on the side of her deputies and the disregard for appropriate organization and corporate governance procedures in their operational behavior. The current majority leader of Ghana’s Parliament, Hon. Osei Kyei Mensah Bonsu was also in record to have said that egos are at play too aside the allegations and counter -allegations by the Commissioners involved in this Public prosecution of their various concerns.
But have you ever thought that without this “faceless” petition, you’d have heard of the alleged financial misappropriation at the EC? What about the alleged disregard for proper organizational and corporate governance procedures in their operational behavior which at times binds the Commission financially?
And the alleged kickback from the six Political Parties which cannot be accounted for?
And the transfer of “perceived” NPP Commissioners by the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission which is supposed to be Independent?
And the many other things you’d get to know with the evolution of this open warfare by the Commissioners?
With all there is and the response from the Chairperson thereof, I am of the view that we need to investigate the operations of the Electoral Commission and the findings will lead to a restructuring of its operations so that it can regain the credibility it has so far lost before the Public due to the sickening revelations made so far.
We must give this investigation all the urgency it deserve in order to ensure the credibility of upcoming elections which our young democracy revolves around. Wolfgang von Goethe captured this well when he says” Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least.”
Let’s build our Country with the good conscience and integrity which signifies national interest.
