Removal Of A EC Boss And The Associated Complications

The President in accordance with Article 146, received and forwarded a petition forwarded to his outfit by lawyer Maxwell Opoku-Agyemang to the Chief Justice for the CJ to decide whether there is a prima facie case.

The constitution in Article 44(2), states "The Chairman of the Electoral Commission shall have the same terms and conditions of service as a Justice of the Court of Appeal". Article 146 spelts out procedures for removal of justices of superior courts and chairmen of regional tribunals, and grounds for their removal. What the failed to capture explicitly, is specific procedure for removal of a EC boss. The constitution in Article 125 mentions the Judiciary and (126) states composition and mode or exercise of power of judiciary.Article (136 1- 5) states composition of court of appeal and qualification of its justices. Article (137 1-3) states explicitly jurisdiction of court of appeal.

The constitution imposes special duties and responsibilities on the ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER which are sharply different from what the constitution states as jurisdiction of court of appeal. The EC boss and the electoral commission's functions are captured in Article (45). Its independence is also captured in Article (46) which states explicitly that " Except as provided in this constitution or in any other law not inconsistent with the constitution, in the performance of its functions, the Electoral Commission, shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority".

The constitution does not confer same space and independence on judges of appeal courts. The Electoral Commissioner, presides over an institution that has its own budget, regulations etc and has offices across the country. In India Article 342(2) of its constitution states explicitly that the Chief Election Commissioner is a must.

However, the number of other Election Commissioners may be optional. The constitution of India grants the Election Commissioner in Ghana, the EC boss, the power to recommend the removal of other EC officers and apart from the Election Commissioner, nobody can remove the deputies. This was captured in their constitution to ensure that the Chief Electoral Commissioner and the deputies are not at the mercy of political or executive bosses of the day.Clause (5) of Article 324,safeguards the independence of not only the functionaries but the whole commission. The conditions and service of the Chief Election Officer, is captured in Article 324 of the India constitution which states that they have to be determined by the President unless determined by law made by its parliament and States that they cannot be varied to the advantage of the CEC after his appointment.

REMOVABILITY-
In the case of the CEC (India), he can be removed from office in like manner and on the like ground as a judge of the supreme court whereas his deputies can be removed on the recommendation of the Chief Election Officer or commissioner. This procedure procedure is explicitly captured in their [India] constitution. India had to amend its constitution to cure the problem I have raised to state clearly,how the Commissioner could be removed and to cure the problem of restraining removal of EC bosses.

Article 146(1) mentions misbehaviour or incompetence or inability to perform the function of his office arising from infirmity of body or mind, as grounds upon which mentioned in 146 could (can) be removed. What constitute incompetence. An appeal court can be described as incompetent if he shows lack of understanding of the law, passes bad judgement or,can be said to have misbehaved if he receives bribe allow his personal interest to influence his judgement or work.

The case of the Electoral Commissioner, is somewhat different because of his job jurisdiction. At the palace, the Dabrehene who is the special aide to the chief, and the Gyasehene, the in- charge of the palace, are place within the same status in terms of operation but are not the same when it comes to our traditional arrangement. In the UK for instance they have introduced the performance standard regime for electoral services.

The political parties and Election Act 2009 grants the Electoral Commission a variety of new supervisory and investigatory powers. Parliament and other bodies felt, it was necessary they help fill the significant gap in the commission's powers, and the new Act also provides new range of flexible civil sanctions, both financial and non financial were concurrently proposed to regulate donees as well as political parties.

When similar allegations were levelled against the UK electoral commission, Parliament and other stakeholders focused more on promulgation of policies to improve the integrity of the commission and transparency of party and election finance.

I am just expressing my kindergarten understanding of the points raised, ready for more education. But my sincerest position is that, this constitution needs serious overhaul. If we take the issue of conditions and service, I don't think the conditions and services of our appeal court judges and the EC are truly the same. The respect and recognition we accord our appeal court judges and the EC boss must be the same that's all the constitution says. The rest of the matter bothers on serious legal technicalities.