Re: Paul Adom Otchere tackles EC chair

I have watched the 19+ minute long lunging at the Electoral Commission and it's Chairman over their rebranding exercise.

Paul made three main arguments:

1. The EC has no business rebranding; 2. The timing of the rebranding was misplaced; and 3. The EC was wrong in its reason for taking off the Coat of Arms from its former logo.

I agree with Paul on two of his arguments, but totally disagree on one of them, and I will give reasons why.

1. The EC has no business rebranding: I could swear I was as surprised as the next guy when I head Paul make the argument that the EC had no business rebranding because it is not a Unilever, Guinness Ghana Limited, Metro TV or any other commercial entity.

His point was that, being a state institution the EC had no business rebranding. Jesus! I expected much more than that from Paul. Every entity is a brand. Even individuals are brands. The state itself is a brand and reason why we had (or have?) a Brand Ghana Office (as shambolic as that institution has been). The EC is a brand; NCCE is a brand, the Judiciary is a brand, and they all can rebrand if they want to.

The mentality that being a state institution means you cannot rebrand must be the most anachronistic viewpoint to be held by someone as enlightened as Paul.

It must be noted that part of the rebranding was because the EC had launched a new strategic document and needed it to reflect the new position and direction, so on that score rebranding is not a crime to commit by Madam Osei and her team.

2. The timing of the rebranding was misplaced: Having said that rebranding was not necessarily a bad thing to do, was the timing right? Absolutely not and I agree perfectly with Paul on that.

Madam Osei had a mandate to ensure free and fair election. She took over not quite a year ago, and there are many things to be done to ensure we have free, fair and transparent elections come November. I do not think rebranding at this time should be her priority.

Where is she in a hurry to? She has security of tenure, and if rebranding is what she and her team want to do, they will have time after this year to do so regardless of which/who will ?#?OccupyFlagstaffHouse? (excuse the pun). Even if it is my beloved Ivor Greenstreet.

Thus, in my view, the timing for the rebrand was not necessary, and the EC had better focused on the real meat and potato for now and think about rebrand later, where later should non-election year. So on that note, and in my humble view, Madam got her priorities totally wrong.

3. The EC was wrong in its reason for taking the Coat of Arms off its former logo: Paul argued, and I agree that what the EC chair said about why they took off the Coat of Arms was absolutely pedestrian.

By saying that the EC did not represent the authority of the state and therefore had no business having the Coat of Arms on its logo was as infantile as my daughter saying she wants to enter the TV to be part of Dora the Explorer and her partner Boots.

I mean this is the EC Chair, this is an astute lawyer, this is someone who should know that she is indicting the same institution she is heading for having the audacity to use the Coat of Arms for as long as the EC has been in existence.

She should have found another excuse, because as a state institution, in my arrogant view, the EC is a representative of the state as any other state institution and if they want to use the Coat of Arms, there will be no qualms raised by anyone. Indeed, the fact that they have used it for this much means they were not wrong in doing so.

Having said that, though I will be pleased to have anyone show me (and Paul of course) any authority that gives Madam Osei the impression that the EC and the people of Ghana have been committing an illegality for this long.