Ghana’s EC under the Lens: Lessons on Governance and Rule of Law

Though my discipline is not law-biased, I find it necessary, without prejudice, to examine the recent supplementary petition filed by Daniel Kwame Ofosu-Appiah seeking the removal of Electoral Commission (EC) Chairperson Jean Mensa, her deputies, and a commissioner. The petition alleges mismanagement, negligence, financial impropriety, and breaches of constitutional obligations, invoking Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which allows for the removal of heads of independent constitutional bodies on proven misbehaviour or incompetence.

Central to the petition are claims that the EC misrepresented the status of its biometric devices ahead of the 2020 elections, justifying unnecessary procurement that allegedly wasted public resources. Equally serious are allegations of gross negligence: biometric devices containing voters’ data were reportedly found at a recycling plant, potentially violating the Data Protection Act, 2012 (Act 843). Such lapses compromise national security and erode public trust in the EC’s mandate.

Further concerns include delayed asset declarations by EC leadership, violating Article 286 of the Constitution and the Public Officers’ Assets Declaration Act (Act 550). Chairperson Mensa and some deputies declared assets years after the statutory deadline, while others have yet to comply. These actions raise a critical question: Do public officeholders fully appreciate that constitutional mechanisms exist to hold them accountable, including removal for misconduct or incompetence?

The petition also highlights wasteful procurement practices, such as prematurely discarding functional biometric devices and acquiring new systems. These decisions, if verified, suggest disregard for the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663, as amended by Act 914), which mandates prudent use of public funds. Another hard question arises: Are officials aware that persistent financial mismanagement could trigger formal removal proceedings?

Legally, the petitioner has followed the proper constitutional route, submitting claims to the President for referral to the Chief Justice. If a prima facie case is found, a tribunal may investigate further. This underscores that officeholders are not above constitutional scrutiny and must ensure their actions withstand legal and public evaluation.

Beyond the EC, the case carries broader lessons. Public officeholders must exercise caution in executing their mandates, ensuring transparency, competence, and diligence. Careful adherence to duty prevents legal enforcement actions from being misinterpreted by opposition parties or the public as political witch-hunting of the appointing authority.

Simultaneously, politicians and stakeholders must allow the law to take its course if democracy and procedural fairness are to be preserved. The ongoing petition demonstrates that legal mechanisms for accountability are active and effective, reinforcing the principle that no office is above scrutiny.

In conclusion, the petition against the EC is a wake-up call. It poses hard questions about accountability and governance while cautioning all public officials to uphold constitutional and statutory duties. Ghana’s democracy depends on institutions that are competent, transparent, and accountable, and enforcement mechanisms are actively in motion to ensure this.

Author: Curtice Dumevor, Public Health Expert & Social Analyst