Six strikes of procurement malpractice, not partisanship, sealed her fate. Comparing her removal to the Chief Justice petition is both misguided and dangerous.
As Ghana braces for yet another constitutional showdown, a troubling narrative has gained momentum. A petition seeking the removal of the current Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo has sparked political ripples, with some key voices in the National Democratic Congress (NDC) drawing parallels to the 2018 dismissal of former Electoral Commission Chairperson, Mrs. Charlotte Osei. But let’s be clear – this comparison isn’t just lazy, it’s troubling and dangerously misleading.
While political parallels are tempting and echoes loudly in Ghana’s highly polarized landscape, the facts of Charlotte Osei’s case are grounded in law, not partisan whims. While political interests undoubtedly hovered in the background, her removal was driven by a series of grave, well-documented violations of the Public Procurement Act, backed by a constitutionally sound process under Article 146. To reduce that to political payback is not only disingenuous, it erodes the very legal standards we must fiercely protect. Hence, we must resist the temptation to weaponize a precedent for political gain.
Charlotte Osei: A Legal Reckoning, Not a Political Casualty
Mrs. Osei’s removal followed a constitutional process set in motion by a citizen-led petition. A number of allegations were made in the petition submitted by Forson Ampofo and others. A prima facie case was established by the Chief Justice on six of the allegations relating to procurement breaches, leading to the formation of a special investigative committee. That committee did not trade in gossip or political vengeance. It dug into the six specific procurement violations, and what it unearthed was alarming.
The Six Strikes
The investigative committee scrutinized six specific procurement violations that constituted sufficient grounds for Mrs. Charlotte Osei’s removal. Each is detailed below:
Sory@Law Engagement Without Procurement Clearance: Charlotte Osei handpicked Sory@Law to represent the Commission without going through any approved procurement processes. There was no involvement of the Commission’s Procurement Unit, Tender Evaluation Panel, or approval from the Public Procurement Authority (PPA), in violation of the Public Procurement Act. As the head of the Electoral Commission, she was required to follow due process for such engagements. Unauthorized Contracts with STL: Several contracts were awarded to STL, a private company, for the provision of IT and biometric services. These contracts were made without adherence to statutory tendering procedures or approval from the PPA. The committee found that the Chairperson exercised discretion without legal authority, which grossly undermined transparency and accountability. Award of Contracts to Dreamoval Ltd Using Donor Funds Without Compliance: Mrs. Osei awarded two contracts to Dreamoval Ltd, one before and one after a USAID grant. In both cases, procurement procedures were not followed. The contracts were not evaluated by the Tender Evaluation Panel, nor were they approved by the PPA. Even though the USAID grant agreement clearly stated that local procurement laws would apply, Mrs. Osei claimed ignorance, an excuse deemed unacceptable and indicative of incompetence by the committee. Award of Contract to Quazar Ltd for Rebranding and Logo Development: The Chairperson awarded two contracts to Quazar Ltd, a South African firm – one for repackaging the EC’s strategic plan (funded by UNDP) and another for developing a new EC logo (funded by the Government of Ghana). In both instances, the use of restricted tendering without prior approval from the PPA and the lack of internal procurement procedures constituted serious breaches. In the latter case, the Chairperson even acted beyond her financial threshold. Unlawful Award of Partitioning and Consultancy Contracts: Contracts related to the partitioning of the Commission’s new office block and the associated consultancy services were awarded solely at the Chairperson’s discretion. The committee found that these contracts were not subjected to competitive tender or internal approval mechanisms. These actions violated Sections 14, 16, 17, and 18 of the Public Procurement Act. Three Contracts for Prefabricated District Offices Awarded Without Due Process: The Electoral Commission awarded three separate contracts for the construction of prefabricated district offices, including consultancy services. All were awarded without recourse to competitive bidding, tender evaluation, or PPA approval. These projects, which involved substantial sums, required strict compliance with procurement laws that were blatantly ignored.
The committee made it clear that these violations were neither mere slip-ups nor technical oversights but persistent and deliberate violations of procurement law by someone who knew better. The Chairperson, as head of the Electoral Commission, was legally responsible for ensuring compliance with the Public Procurement Act (Act 663 and Act 914). Her failure to do so, combined with an untenable claim of ignorance, demonstrated both misbehavior and incompetence under Article 146 of the Constitution. Remember, Mrs. Charlotte Osei is a lawyer so how could she have claimed ignorance of the procurement laws? The report stated unequivocally that her conduct “constitutes misbehavior” as defined under the Constitution, and the pattern of breaches was consistent, widespread, and serious.
Why the Comparison with the Chief Justice is Misplaced
Here’s the catch – Contrary to the Charlotte Osei case, the current petition against the Chief Justice remains undisclosed to the public. We do not yet know the substance of the allegations or whether the Chief Justice has been found to have breached any law or constitutional requirement. To compare a petition whose content remains confidential with a rigorously and well-substantiated case is premature, irresponsible and disingenuous. The rule of law demands that we treat each case on its own merit. The Constitution provides mechanisms to address misconduct in public office. However, this must be based on evidence, procedure, and objective findings, not political tit-for-tat.
Furthermore, it is telling that while the NDC argues Charlotte Osei’s removal was unjust, they have mostly remained silent about the simultaneous removal of her two deputies, Amadu Sulley and Georgina Opoku Amankwaa. If the process was flawed, why not defend all three? This selective outrage further exposes the unintelligent political motivations behind such comparisons.
Let the Constitution Speak, Not Politics
Charlotte Osei’s removal was a painful but necessary step in safeguarding institutional integrity. It was not a political ambush but based on documented breaches of procurement law, failure to comply with statutory obligations, and mismanagement of public resources and by reasonable extension, corruption. It was not a political witch-hunt but a lawful application of constitutional checks and balances.
To use that precedent to justify another high-profile ‘‘removal’’ without knowing the facts is to undermine the very legal framework that held Charlotte Osei accountable. As citizens and stakeholders in Ghana’s democracy, we must demand transparency, not conjecture; facts, not comparisons; and justice, not vengeance.
Until the content of the petitions against the Chief Justice and the Committee report made public, scrutinized, and found credible under due process, let’s resist the urge to recycle old battles into new ones. It is dangerous to draw equivalences based on emotional retribution or partisan convenience.
The removal of Ghana’s former EC Chair was a legal reckoning, not political retaliation. Let’s not distort facts to fit today’s partisan battles. We must allow the Constitution, not political scorekeeping, be our guide.
My 2 pesewas
James McKeown
Helsinki, Finland
[email protected]
[email protected]
