The 27 claims made against Charlotte Osei and the responses - Claim 7

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 Chairperson’s insatiable demand of affluence and flamboyance, she unilaterally awarded a contract to the tune of GHS3.9 million for demarcation and partitioning of the said office complex without recourse to the Commission. She claimed she sought approval from the Public Procurement Authority but strangely enough, the contract sum is higher than approved level.”

Response 7: It is untrue that the 7 members of the Commission do not see anything wrong with the current offices. Commission members have constantly complained to the Chairperson about leaking and damaged roofs, poor electrical wiring, damp walls and lack of storage facilities to store elections equipment resulting in significant losses and inefficient use of resources at the Commission.

The Chairperson informed the Commission in late 2015 that the Commission had requested new office premises from the Presidency to house the new secretariat of the Association of African Election Authorities (AAEA) after Ghana had been voted as a permanent secretariat of the AAEA in July 2015 with responsibility to provide office space for the AAEA. In February 2016, at a Commission meeting members were informed that Government had allocated a new office building to the Commission through the office of the Chief of Staff. Members were further informed that the new office was a new building and would only require partitioning and all commissioners were encouraged to visit the new premises. The Chairperson subsequently visited the new site with the two Deputy Chairpersons and a commission member, all of who were very excited by the new office. The Chairperson has no control over the office of the Chief of Staff or the Presidency and clearly cannot obtain the permission of the Commission if a new office is allocated to the Commission. The current offices have major structural defects, significant parts of the roof are collapsing, significant leakages in most offices, damp and mouldy walls, electrical defects have been discovered and pointed out by the Fire Service for urgent attention (please see ‘CO7A’ attached), the building lacks disability access, is decrepit and outdated, requiring extensive work and expense to make it habitable and reflective of the office of the Electoral Commission. The building houses precious lives of staff of the Commission and sensitive national assets such as the largest database of Ghanaians currently in the country. The current office space is not suitable by any standards.

With regard to the contract for partitioning of the 8-floor office building, the procurement laws were scrupulously followed. A copy of the Tender evaluation report is attached and marked ‘CO7B’. The scope of the contract included glazed aluminum partitions for all 8 floors, plumbing and sanitary installations, ventilation/air conditioning installations, electrical installations, servicing of the lifts, demolitions, masonry works and painting amongst others. Directors of the Commission at the head office (Finance, HR, IT and Electoral Services), and an external consultant were members of the evaluation panel. The Chairperson of the Commission was not a member of the tender evaluation panel. The bid submitted by Inocon Limited was the lowest of the three bids and was recommended to the Chairperson for approval.

The Chairperson of the Commission is not and has never been a member of the tender evaluation committee and cannot therefore; influence the award of the contract. Indeed, Mrs. Osei was not even present in the ETC meeting where tenders were opened for the partitioning contract (please see document marked ‘CO7C’). The Chairperson is the only one authorised by the policies of the Commission to sign contracts (copy of policy attached and marked ‘CO7D’). In any case, for the said contract that is allegedly unknown to the Commission, payment was approved and paid by the Deputy Chairperson CS without the knowledge and authorization of the Chairperson.

There is no requirement in law or in policy, for the Chairperson to seek the approval of the Commission for the execution of any contracts. Evidence of any law or policy requiring this approval should as a matter of law, be presented by the petitioners.

An investigation into the processes for award of the contract and a value for money assessment would be welcome as it would be based on law and policies and not motivated by ill will and pettiness.

Claim 8: “Mrs. Charlotte Osei has been engaging in cronyism by awarding a contracts to the tune of $14,310,961 United States Dollars to her cronies for the construction of pre-fabricated District offices without recourse to the Commission. The value of these contracts is in excess of the approved threshold by the Public Procurement Authority. One of the contractors by name Messrs Contracts & Cads Limited is related to Mrs. Charlotte Osei. Upon receipt of advance mobilization under the approval of the Chairperson, the company has failed to meet the contract terms. Notwithstanding the clear breach of the contractual terms, the company has requested for additional payment which the Chairperson has approved. The Director of Finance has stopped the payment of this request. This accounts for one of the reasons of the Chairperson’s disaffection for the Director of Finance.”

Response 8: A contract was awarded for the construction of 100 district offices to Messrs Clicotech and Messrs. Cads Contracts & Services on a 58-42 basis. Although Messrs Cads Contracts was the only company that met all the criteria at the Entity Tender Committee level (please see document marked ‘CO8A’), the tender evaluation committee recommended that they be awarded 42% of the contract for stated reasons. The Chairperson followed in total, the recommendations of the evaluation panel (copy attached and marked ‘CO8B’) in awarding the contract. In following the recommendation, there was clearly no wrongdoing or alleged cronyism by the Chairperson. If the Chairperson intended to award the contract to Cads Contracts based on cronyism, then the same Chairperson would not have given Clicotech Limited an extended time (with consent of the other bidders) to submit its audited accounts, VAT and tax clearance certificates to enable it meet the tender requirements. Mrs. Osei has no relative at Cads Contracts Ltd.

If the contract sums were in excess of the thresholds approved by the PPA, it begs the question why these issues were not pointed out in the report of the tender evaluation panel, why the Deputy Chairpersons as member so the Review Panel did not point this out and why the Deputy Chairperson CS would approve the payments to Clicotech and Cads Contracts (same contracts, issued through same process) and ensure that payments on the contracts were effected without the approval of the Chairperson and with no notice to her.

In Addition, the consultant engaged by the Commission has been actively involved in the management of the contract. He has visited all the project sites, written to confirm work done by both contractors and to endorse the certificates raised by both contractors. The consultant has not raised any issues of impropriety or poor performance on the contract. Indeed, the consultant has recently written a letter to the Chairperson reminding her of the need to honour payment obligations to the contractors as per the terms of the contract. Incidentally, on these same contracts, mobilization payments were made to both contractors in December 2016, without the knowledge and approval of the Chairperson. These are matters of grave financial impropriety that require further investigation. The Chairperson has no issues with the Director of Finance and staff at the EC head office can testify to this. In matters of contracts, it is important that an institution such as the EC follows the instructions of its retained consultant in management of the contract to avoid breaches of contractual terms rather than sentiments based on mischief and ill will.

Claim 9: “The Chairperson has brought the Commission’s name into disrepute for single handedly petitioning EOCO on an alleged misappropriation of staff endowment fund for malicious reasons. This is because the issue has come before the entire Commission for redress. The decision to go to EOCO was not that of the Commission but characteristically unilateral decision by the Chairperson.”

Response 9: The Chairperson has NOT submitted a petition to EOCO on the Endowment Fund issue. However, the Chairperson believes that EOCO is the right institution being a fact finding body, to investigate the issue of what the endowment fund contributions of staff, which were not paid into the Fund for eight months in 2014 were used for. This matter has been before the Commission since February 2015 and has not been resolved. A memo sent by the Chairperson on December 1, 2015 on the issue has not been responded to as of today (please see ‘CO9A’ attached). The vouchers indicating the application of the Funds have not been submitted despite repeated requests by the Chairperson and repeated claims by the deputy Chairpersons of their availability. The Commission cannot by itself, use 2017 funds released by the Ministry of Finance, to repay obligations incurred in 2014, with no documentation and not recorded in the audit report of 2014 as an outstanding obligation, without the report of a separate institution like EOCO. If there has been any embarrassment to the Commission, it is based on the failure to keep proper accounting records in the matter and the wrongful utilization of monies belonging rightfully to the staff endowment fund. If the unknown petitioners are actually ‘concerned staff’ of the EC, the resolution of this matter should be of utmost importance.

Claim 10: “The Commission procured grant from USAID as part of the support of the 2016 General Election. This facility was signed by the then Minister of Finance. By Article 175 of the 1992 Constitution and in line with Section 5 of the Financial Administration Act, 2003 (Act 654), these grants constitute Public Funds. As part of the implementation of this grant the Chairperson, Mrs. Charlotte Osei, without the Commission’s approval unilaterally recruited Personal Assistant and a Communication Officer and paid them $1,500 and $2,500 United States Dollars respectively. This was done without clearance from the Ministry of Finance.”

Response 10: The Chairperson and the Commission did not require the permission of the Ministry of Finance to utilize funds agreed with the USAID in the manner agreed by USAID in the Funding contract. All expenditure of donor funds is carried out in line with the policies of the donor agency. The petitioners would have to provide further proof of this requirement and show how in disbursement of other donor funds the Commission has sought the permission of the Ministry of Finance. The Chairperson followed the rules of the funding agency to the letter. The Chairperson does not need the approval of the Commission to appoint temporary staff and consultants deemed necessary and agreed in the Grant letter. Indeed, as part of the basket of donor support provided to the Commission for the election, it was agreed by donor partners that the Commission would require a communications consultant and that a personal assistant should be recruited for the Chairperson to support with managing the heavy workload of the election year.

Claim 11: “The Chairperson unilaterally transferred District Electoral Officers she perceived to be pro-NPP to deprived areas prior to the 2016 general elections without the knowledge of the Commission contrary to administrative procedures.”

Response 11: The petitioners would have to show the basis for the perception that the district electoral officers transferred were pro-NPP. Is the allegation that only staff who are pro other parties should be made to work in ‘deprived areas’? How are these ‘deprived areas’ defined? It would be helpful for the petitioners, if they exist, to show what action was taken and should have been taken against district electoral officers performing key functions and showing party biases as they allege. These officers were transferred because of threats made by political actors on their activities, which were likely to compromise the neutrality of the commission and the integrity of the elections. It is within the powers of the Chairperson to transfer district electoral officer either for purposes of protecting the lives of staff or as the exigencies of the Commission’s work requires.

Claim 12: “Since her assumption of office, the Chairperson has polarized the Commission along political lines. Her political posture prior to the 2016 General Election is evidence for public judgment.”

Response 12: This is palpably untrue. Indeed, the Chairperson assumed office in a very politically polarized environment and has worked very hard with staff, staff associations and unions to create a healthier work environment. The petitioners must present evidence to support this allegation.

Claim 13: “The leadership of Mrs. Charlotte Osei has brought about an irreversible disunity among Commission Members to the extent that she is not on speaking terms with the deputies and other Commission members. There is total breakdown of administrative structures of the Commission.”

Response 13. Mrs. Osei is on speaking terms with everyone at the Commission. The Deputy Chairpersons have chosen to be grossly insubordinate and rude and there is ample documented evidence to support this. Deputies take managerial decisions and implement same without the knowledge of the Chairperson; threaten staff that have direct dealings with the Chairperson; take their leave without the approval of the Chairperson and implement major administrative and operational decisions without the knowledge of the Chairperson. It would be helpful for our fictitious petitioners to provide evidence to the contrary. There is only a breakdown of the structures for maladministration and illegal financial dealings and not the administrative structures of the Commission as claimed by the fictitious petitioners.