By William
Yaw Owusu
Thursday
June 21, 2018
The committee set up
by Chief Justice Sophia A.B. Akuffo to investigate Electoral Commission (EC)
Chairperson, Charlotte Osei and her two deputies for abuse of office and
conflict of interest, is reportedly reviewing addresses filed by the
petitioners and respondents.
The in-camera proceedings
reportedly ended on Thursday, May 19 when the petitioners and respondents in
the matter officially closed their cases.
Both the petitioners
and the three EC chiefs, namely Charlotte Osei, Amadu Sulley in-charge of
Operations and Georgina Opoku Amankwah in-charge of Corporate Services, were
given up to June 8 to file their addresses for which they complied.
Series of Allegations
DAILY GUIDE’s sources claimed the petitioners filed their
addresses and reiterated their allegations of illegal payments, breaches of
procurement law and gross misconduct which triggered impeachment proceedings
that could lead to the removal of the EC chairperson.
They insist that the
EC boss must be shown the exit.
They were concerned
about violations of Sections 14 and 15 of the Public Procurement Act 2003, (Act
663) as amended by the Public Procurement (Amendment) Act, 2016 (Act 914).
They reportedly
maintained that serious breaches of law and misconduct partly due to
incompetence on the part of the EC boss were real and proceeded to provide
evidence to back the allegations.
The petitioners further
reinforced their claims that the EC boss unilaterally appointed a private law
firm for the commission without recourse to the commission or the Public
Procurement Act and allegedly authorized the payment of huge sums of money to
the law firm although the said firm had no formal and approved contract with
the commission.
It turned out that
the petitioners’ testimony was corroborated by senior officers and some members
of the commission in the course of the proceedings.
DAILY GUIDE learnt that the respondent confirmed making
the payments to the law firm, but said she did not think it was unlawful
because the payments were not opposed or queried by other members of the
Commission.
Procurement Breaches
The petitioners also
reportedly pushed the case of $108,510 paid to a private company called Dream
Oval Ltd based on the approval from the EC boss, even though the commission was
said to have no contract with the said company.
It was believed to
be in clear breach of the Procurement Act and the Financial Administration Act.
The petitioners
reportedly exhibited how the EC boss engaged in procurement of goods and
services without prior approval of the Public Procurement Authority;
procurement of goods and services over and above the approved limits set by the
Public Procurement Authority and procurement of goods and services beyond the
limit of the EC chairperson.
Petitioners were
said to have further pushed a case in which the EC boss allegedly awarded a
contract to the tune of $22,340,814 to Super Tech Ltd (STL) without the recourse
to the commission or the PPA.
New EC Office
The petitioners from
the onset insisted that Charlotte Osei unilaterally took the decision to move
the EC headquarters to a new office complex by claiming the decision was from
the Presidency.
The EC boss
reportedly commissioned companies to partition the new office complex but the
petitioners allegedly provided evidence to show that the contracts of two of
the entities exceeded the figures approved by the Public Procurement Authority
to the tune of GH¢565,976.08 and GHS 209,443.75 respectively.
Petitioners also claim
the chairperson of the EC awarded various contracts for the construction of
Prefabricated District Offices without recourse to the Commission and in excess
of the threshold approved by the Procurement Authority contrary to law.
The EC boss
reportedly provided some responses and highlighted the sole sourcing rule,
among others, in answer to the petitioners’ claims, but with others she
reportedly failed to offer an explanation.
No comments:
Post a Comment