It is often said that ‘a stitch in
time saves nine’ and that ‘it is only unitiated sheep who does not remember that
the lion which had sprung a deadly surprise on goats could easily redirect its
devouring spree to anyone it finds on its way, especially when the lion is seen
lingering around the neighbourhood appearing to be hungrier’. The case of PNF and
Mrs. Charlotte is that of intriguing narrative.
Record of PNF
Progressive Nationalist
Forum (PNF), a Pro-NPP youth group and great advocate for respect of 1992
Constitution of Ghana, began to earn my congenial respect when it successfully
fought a constitutional battle to have Madam Lauretta Vivian Lamptey removed as
CHRAJ Boss under article 146 and co of 1992 republican constitution. She was
said to have flagrantly abused her office as Chairperson of CHRAJ by having
unwisely spent tax payers’ money on hotel bills. Hitherto, PNF through Mr. Richard Nyama also
got a favourable Supreme Court Judgement directing government to comply with the
GETFund Law of transferring statutory funds to GETFund on time.
PNF and EC Chair in tangle
On the particular case of
Madam Lauretta which has some semblance
with that of Mrs. Charlotte Osei’s, the spirit of the constitution watched on
while public outcry struggled to come to terms with why she could be that
profligate. When PNF started the case against Madam Lauretta, she was
recalcitrant and called the bluff of PNF to have her impeached. At least, if
she had acted timely and yielded to the key demand of her to resign, she would
have saved some face. She had waited
until the situation got worst – beyond repairs.
So when the same PNF
frontally came out recently to allege that Mrs. Charlotte Osei may have been in
breach of the constitution, Article 44(4) in particular, I was one of those
whose interest was quickly drawn to it. One because of PNF’s past spirited defence of the constitution, and two because of the deep respect I had cautiously
developed for the EC Chairperson, Madam Charlotte. Frankly, part of my respect
for her was based on her good professional background and much the way she
carefully, intelligently and attractively articulated the views of EC during
the EC dialoguing conference on whether or not to compile a new electoral
register for 2016 general elections.
However, the next time I
heard Madam Charlotte spoke, I was partly impressed and partly disappointed.
She spoke to Samson Lardy Anyenini on ‘Joyfm
Newsfile’ on 9th day of January 2016. I was so impressed about the
way she responded to all the questions on the electoral register and the
processes that would lead to November 7, 2016 elections. She was dazzling as
usual and caught the admiration of many listeners who appeared to be convinced
like me that she is really best fit for EC Chairperson in critical times like
election year.
I was nonetheless saddened
that instead of to have used the opportunity to clear the air that she was not
in breach of the constitutional provision in question as had been alleged by
PNF, she rather chose to be evasive. She was of the view that the air will be
cleared on the matter should PNF carries out its threat of petitioning the President or sending her to Supreme
Court or whichever place to seek for constitutional interpretation and her removal.
Question is: what if PNF
does not file a petition against Mrs. Charlotte, how do we get the air cleared on
whether or not she is in breach of the constitution? Wouldn't some sort of
misperception linger on in people’s minds which may affect her integrity and
that of EC?
Before Charlotte
intimated that the air would be cleared when
petition is filed, she kept saying to Samson, “you are a lawyer” and then – Samson
read out from the constitution what the term means, which goes as, public
office “includes [but may not be limited
to] an office the emoluments attached to which are paid directly from the
consolidated Fund or directly out of moneys provided by Parliament and an
office in a public corporation established entirely out of public funds or
moneys provided by Parliament” (Article 295:1, 1992 Constitution of Ghana).
She was apparently
persuading Samson and his listeners to infer therefrom that Ghana Reinsurance
Company Ltd (Ghana Re) is not a public office and thus she could not have been in
breach of article 44(4) of the 1992 republican constitution of Ghana which says
that, ‘the Chairperson and the two Deputy
Chairpersons of electoral commission shall not, while they hold office on the
Commission, hold any other public office’. I have mixed feelings and
understanding primarily because I don’t have the full information on what kind
of company Ghana Re exactly is – save reading from website of Ghana RE that it
is a government company!
Expectation on integrity
In matters of integrity,
even though you have the right to be measured in your response to legal issues
so as not to be taken out of context or used against you in court, as long as
you believe in merits and conviction of your actions, you don’t have to give
the slightest chance for anyone to impugn culpability thereof. You have to, without
wasting time, be bold to respond directly to allegations levelled against you in
the best bravado of stamina you can marshal. This is especially more applicable
to a deeply politicized society where the opposition NPP has already tried hard
to raise integrity issues against Madam Charlotte, especially in respect of her
unfortunately alleged soft-spot posture towards NDC. Swift response is also particularly needed in
light of the very sensitive and centripetal nature of EC.
If you know you don’t
have cobwebs in your cupboard, you don’t need to be found wanting when asked by
a stranger to open it. It just did not sit down well with me as to why Mrs.
Charlotte could not boldly state her position on the fact that, despite being
EC Chairperson since July 2015 she was, as at December 2015, still a board
member of Ghana Re, a 100% government owned company – according to www.ghanare.com (retrieved 9/Jan/2016: 12:30 pm).
As a lawyer herself,
after her appointment as EC Chairperson, she may have had addressed or averted
her mind to conflicts of interest situations she could find herself in based on
constitutional provisions. Did she do self introspection vis-à-vis integrity
protection relative to relevant constitutional provisions before or after she
accepted the job as EC boss? What did she find? Didn't she think that doubling
as a board member of company with government of Ghana having 100% shares could
draw her into some sort of controversies – rightly or wrongly?
Final remarks
In the scheme of things
and the exigencies of the times, Madam Charlotte should do the honourable thing if
she thinks or have gotten to recognize that Ghana Re is a public company and
that she may have flouted the constitution of the republic. My candid and very
considerate advice, in this regard, is that having already said to have resigned
as board member of Ghana Re, she should quickly go ahead and refund to the
State all the emoluments she took from July 2015 when she was made EC
Chairperson - as demanded by PNF. Further on, Madam Charlotte should publicly apologize
to Ghanaians for any error of judgement on her part or for likely defilement of
public interest.
This may, at least, redress
any perceived dent on Charlotte’s integrity and persuade PNF to seize the long haul
battle it intends to have with her as it successfully had against Madam Lauretta.
But for the meagreness of any alleged breach of the constitution and the closeness
Ghana is to very crucial elections, my very principled position would have been,
if proven culpable, to just ask Madam Charlotte
to immediately resign and give way to someone who has no such associated
blemishes.
On the other hand, if
Madam Charlotte is convinced and persuaded to believe that she was or is not in
conflict of interest situation being with EC and Ghana Re, then she should
quickly issue a press statement denying that she is or was in conflict of
interest situation and therefore shall not resign as EC Chairperson. She must
respond and act decisively NOW.
We
can’t afford to be debating her personality and extra-activities at the time
when our focus should rather be on the best processes towards transparent,
credible, free, fair and peaceful general elections in November 2016. In fact,
we don’t have the luxury of such a time to waste.
No comments:
Post a Comment