General News Wed, 4 Jul 2018
The removed chairperson of the Electoral Commission Charlotte Osei still has her post intact on the official website of the commission as her title remains “chairman” on the portal.This is despite the fact that Mrs. Osei and her two deputies have been out of office since the last one week having been removed on Thursday June 28.
When Starrfmonline.com visited the Commission’s website Wednesday afternoon, all three officials who have been removed had their names and positions still attached to their images on the site.
Their dismissal was after the Committee set up by the Chief Justice, Justice Sophia Akuffo, pursuant to Article 146(4) of the Constitution, to investigate separate complaints brought against the three persons by Ghanaian citizens, recommended their removal from office.
The Committee recommended their removal on the basis of stated misbehaviour and incompetence, pursuant to Article 146(1) of the Constitution.
Meanwhile, a private person Fafali Nyonator, has hauled the Attorney General and Minister of Justice Gloria Akuffo to the Supreme Court over the impeachment of Charlotte Osei as the chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC).
The action of Ms Nyonator, according to the writ filed at the Supreme Court Tuesday, is among other things seeking a “declaration that the determination by Her Ladyship the Chief Justice of a prima facie case pursuant to Article 146 of the Constitution for the removal of the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission is inconsistent with Article 130(a) of the Constitution as by the said determination Her Ladyship the Chief Justice usurped the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to construe and/or define the scope of application of the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Articles 44(2) and 146 thereof.”
Again, the writ is seeking a declaration that the Committee set up by the Chief Justice pursuant to Article 146 of the Constitution to inquire into the petition for the removal from office of Mrs. Osei exceeded its powers by construing, or defining the scope of application of, provisions of the 1992 Constitution, including Articles 44(2) and 146, and thus acted in violation of Article 130(a) of the Constitution by usurping the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret the provisions of the Constitution.