So the President per Article 146 of the 1992 constitution has removed the EC chair and two deputies.
Let's note that the EC Chair and Deputies are not mentioned in the said provision but its applicable by virtue of Article 44 (2) and (3) respectively (1992 Constitution).
Issues have been raised as to the propriety of such action of the president.
Some say it is harsh and a general application of such strict interpretation of our procurement laws can be dangerous for public servants.
Remember the President could not reject, vary the petition, or the report. 146(4)(9).
Again some say such should not apply at such sensitive positions because it is a recipe for chaos as it bothers on elections etc.
Some even intimated the petition, unsigned, was sent by faceless individuals and that it was incompetent.
First there can't be a petition to gualify for referral to the CJ if it does not bear names and signatures of the petitioners.
May be it was anonymous from the beginning as far as the general public is concerned but surely not when it has to be dealt with by CJ and her committee subsequently.
And indeed the public is not strictly entitled to know the petitioners but the President and the CJ, at the point of consideration must establish those.
After all the report indicates the EC chair and the two deputies took turns to testify against each other based on the 'faceless and unsigned petition'?.
And those asking for a relaxed position because it is a matter of procurement…. I hasten to say such position is so unpatriotic and the height of insensitivity to the plight of the suffering masses.
A lot of resources have gone waste and into the pockets of public servants and individuals denying the nation of valuable resources that could alleviate the poverty we find around.
And again why should the committee not apply the rules strictly. If there is any public official who has insisted on strict application of our laws in the country, it is the EC chair. The filling of nominations for 2016 elections comes to mind. How faulty signatures constituted bases for disqualification of candidates and parties.
Not even a high court could compel the Chair to relax her rules. Only the highest court gave lifeline to some candidates, and we say what?
The petioners requested removal and not caution or reforms. So what shoud tge Committee grant them if tgey saw merit in their petition. They indicated specific breaches which according to them if established should be the bases for the removal.
The CJ committee saw them, adjudicated on fair trial bases, established them and deemed it enough misbehavior and incompetence which are enough to remove them. Simplicita.
I pray this serves as precedent for such future strict interpretation of our procurement law and will apply to all public servants who have been treated with kid's gloves on procurement breaches taking undue advantage of s. 38, 39, 40 and 41 of the procurement Act 2003. Act 663.
The EC job is not only the conduct of elections but the adherance to deligence and due processes leading to the election, plus the constitutional injunction of all public servants to adhere to the laws applicable to their functions, must not be ignored.
Let's rather demand for much experienced Patriots with maturity and the right demeanor as replacement for the sacked Commissioners and take out the partisan hue and cry, because after all when Ghanaians are vigilant in deciding who rules them, no amount of work by EC chairperson can rig elections for a political party.
Will come to the abbetors, the paying political parties later.
Let's keep the smile on…..
The writer, Ekourba Gyasi, works with Atinka Media Village as a Presenter; he hosts the AM Drive on Atinka FM. He is also law student.