EC BROUHAHA: CJ's secret C'ttee worrying--group

A group calling itself – Joint Action for Justice – has described as worrying the “secrecy” surrounding the committee empanelled by the Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo to look into the alleged abuse of power and corruption scandals that have rocked the Electoral Commission.

The five-member committee’s formation followed the establishment of  grounds for the impeachment of the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission Charlotte Osei together with her two deputies – Georgina Opoku-Amankwah who is in charge of Corporate Services and Amadu Sulley, in charge of Operations – as prescribed under Article 146 of the 1992 constitution.

The Committee will be chaired by the Chief Justice and identity of its other members is still not known, a phenomenon the Joint Action for Justice says is disturbing.

“In a statement released by the Chief Justice on the 19th of December, 2017, the statement announced the formation of a committee upon the establishment of a prima facie case against Mrs. Charlotte Osei with the names of the said committee conspicuously missing from the release,” said the group in a statement.

“This must be a worry to the people of Ghana. Not too long ago, the appointment of this very woman to head the institution Electoral Commission, received several resistance from the New Patriotic Party (NPP) then in opposition. At the time, there were many threats to reject any election results that did not declare the NPP winners of the 2016 elections,” added the statement.

Below is the full statement

THE WORRYING DRAMA SURROUNDING RELENTLESS ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE MRS. CHARLOTTE OSEI FROM OFFICE – JOINT ACTION FOR JUSTICE

We have observed with great concern, the processes leading to the attempts to remove the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, Mrs. Charlotte Osei and her two other deputies from office by this government.

The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, under Article 146, states the processes and procedures to be followed in the removal of any person holding such an office.

While we must admit that the Constitution presents that a petition would have been presented, a petition does not qualify to be called a petition if it has no petitioners, no signature(s) and no date.

In the specific case, in a statement released from the presidency to the public on the 26th of July, 2017 which read in part “Whilst the President was out of the country, the office of the President received a petition, initially undated and unsigned, against the Chairperson of the EC. Subsequently, counsel, Maxwell Opoku Agyemang, Esq., by letter dated 20th July, 2017, wrote to the office of the President setting out the names of the petitioners and the date of the petition”.

The presidency, with this release, had clearly demonstrated that it has a clear understanding of what qualifies to be called a petition which should have compelled the president to act. To the extent  that according to the presidency, the document did not qualify, what exact interest had the presidency in this matter that it could not act to dismiss the petition as not qualifying to be one?

That the presidency actually made contacts to ensure that the petition qualifies to be one, and to receive a presidential action on same, it suffices to say that the presidency was very interested in seeing to the removal of the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, Mrs. Charlotte Osei, and raises a few fundamental questions.

Why did the presidency hold onto a petition that had no petitioners and without date and signature?At what point did the lawyer get the opportunity to follow up to correct the shortfalls of the petition without first withdrawing it?What was the interest of the presidency in this petition for which they held on until all that could make it thrown out, were corrected before forwarding same to the Chief Justice?

Source: starrfm