The Chair of the Electoral Commission (EC) Jean Mensa could be charged for causing financial loss to the state if the election management body goes ahead to compile a new voter’s register for this year’s elections, General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Johnson Asiedu Nketia, has said.The NDC together with some other political parties and civil society groups have joined forces together and formed an ‘Inter-party Resistance Against New Voters Register’ to reject the decision by the EC to compile a new roll for the polls.
Addressing a press conference in Accra on Tuesday, March 3, 2020, Mr Asiedu Nketia said: “Suffice it to say that the Jean Mensah-led EC has been telling well-packaged lies to Ghanaians; lies deliberately calculated to court public support for the compilation of a new voters’ register. These falsehoods, coupled with the raging controversy over corrupt tender processes for the supply of new BDV equipment and the announcement of a winner with a questionable record, clearly show that something fishy is going on at the EC."
"It is either Jean Mensa and her sponsors have a financial interest in the procurement of entirely new equipment or that the compilation of a new register is part of a rigging agenda for the benefit of NPP or both.
“We have shared with you, authentic information we have received from the vendors of the existing machines. The contents are very revealing. Clearly, the EC has been caught red-handed and we now await their reaction. Meanwhile, we remind Madam Jean Mensa that we are still waiting for the report of the so-called IT consultant which formed the basis of their decision to compile a new voters’ register. We dare her to publish that Consultant’s report if it indeed exists."
“At this stage, we wish to remind Jean Mensa and the Electoral Commission of the ingredients of the law on Willfully Causing Financial Loss to the State as brilliantly espoused by Late Justice Afreh of blessed memory in the famous quality grain case.
“Financial loss must have occurred. This means that the state spent more money than necessary on the project, whether or not the benefit of the project was more than sufficient to cover the cost.
“The presence of an act or omission. This means the failure to follow lawful processes or do due diligence on a multimillion-dollar project. There must be a direct link between the financial loss to the state and the act or omission of the public officer. In this case, it is sufficient to prove that the loss has been contributed to by the act or omission of the public officer and not necessarily the exclusive cause of the loss.
“That the public officer foresaw the consequences of her action and desired the consequences or took an unreasonable risk of its occurrence. My advice to Aunty Jean is that today you may feel confident with the support of the powers that be to embark on this action, but remember that those same powers will not be available to protect you on the day of reckoning, which is clearly fast approaching.”