The 27 claims made against Charlotte Osei and the responses

The Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, Mrs Charlotte Osei has provided responses to all points raised with supporting documentation to the petition filed by some "concerned staff" of the Electoral Commission asking for the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) to investigate her.

In the 17-page document, a copy of which has been seen by Graphic Online, the lawyers for Mrs Osei, Sory@Law responded to all 27 claims in the petition and described the allegations as “baseless.”

The petitioners have also petitioned the Office of the President, asking for impeachment and removal proceedings to be initiated against Mrs Osei on grounds of misconduct and conflict of interest.

Subsequently, Mrs Osei through her lawyers on July 21, 2017, provided the response in the 17-page document to EOCO.

Below is a copy of the response

RE: PETITION AGAINST THE CHAIRPERSON OF ELECTORAL COMMISSION, MRS. CHARLOTTE OSEI

RESPONSES PROVIDED BY MRS. CHARLOTTE OSEI TO THE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE PETITION

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 petition 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 30th 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 issue was raised, the PRO of Ghana Re confirmed that she only resigned on December 5th, 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” in the context of Article 44(4) 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 29th June, 2017 before the swearing in.”

Response 2: The 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: Mrs. Osei does not use a vehicle with the said registration number WR2291-15. Following her appointment as Chairperson, the Office of the Chief of Staff allocated Mrs. Osei a vehicle. This is certainly not a new practice in Ghana’s public service. 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 neither 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 clearly the “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 the December 2016 elections were safe, free and fair and the Chairperson is directly acknowledged as having been instrumental in ensuring this. As testament to her work, she has received local and international commendation and recognition.

As an allegation supporting an impeachment process, this would be the first time that posture, that ‘could have’ had a certain effect but did not, would be a supporting ground for a constitutional impeachment process.

Claim 5: “Mrs. Charlotte Osei, without recourse to the Commission engaged the Service of lawyers Sory@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. If there has been any breach in the procurement process, then the entire Commission must be held responsible. 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 lawsuits to Sory@Law on the basis of the Commission’s decision. It was the function of the Deputy Chairperson CS to negotiate the fees for each matter referred with Sory@Law. Indeed, the same Deputy Chairperson CS has previously failed to negotiate fees with previous counsel retained by the Commission or ensure that they are paid for legal work done. Some of these payments remain outstanding four years after services have been rendered.

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.

The petitioners may not be staff of the Commission as they claim and so may not be privy to the fact that on November 16, 2016, Sory@Law wrote to the Commission providing a fee quote for its services and offering a flat rate fee for High Court cases and Supreme Court cases which was accepted. The said letter is attached hereto and marked ‘CO5A’. Further, any payments made to Sory@Law have been effected by the Director Finance under the supervision of the Deputy Chairperson CS. If the petitioners have no knowledge of the arrangements with Sory@Law, one wonders the basis for payments made to Sory@Law without the approval or knowledge of the Chairperson. The petitioners in the interest of fairness and transparency, may wish to present the agreement between the Commission and its previous legal counsel, specifying the scope of services and agreed fees a. In which case, it would be helpful to explain why the Commission as at the date of the alleged petition, has been unable to pay its lawyers for the 2013 Presidential election petition.


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.”

Response 6: The two Deputy Chairpersons signed 2 contracts with STL on 6 May 2015 for US$22.3m (BVR) and US$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. The finance and procurement departments 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 Operations 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 (please see ‘CO6E’ attached) 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 US$7.2m (attached as ‘CO6F’). This resulted in STL submitting a new proposal for the services at a quote of US$7.2m (attached as ‘CO6G’)

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. Was the Chairperson to seek the input of the same deputies who had admitted lack of knowledge in procurement matters and who had earlier failed to follow procurement laws and hastily signed such major contracts?