The Electoral Commission (EC) of Ghana, under the leadership of Madam Jean Mensa, has once again raised concerns over its conduct in overseeing the 2024 Presidential Elections. At the IPAC (Interparty Advisory Committee) meeting held on 15th October 2024, Jean Mensa’s response to critical questions from the representatives of the People's National Convention (PNC) and the Progressive People’s Party (PPP) revealed a shocking lack of understanding of Ghana’s electoral laws. Worse still, it portrayed a disturbing lack of accountability and transparency in the EC’s handling of the disqualification of presidential candidates.

A Disregard for Legal Obligations

The Electoral Commission Chairperson, in her attempt to defend the disqualification process, made a claim that "there was no discrimination in the selection or the final list of persons who qualify to be on the ballot." She then added, "We have said over and over again that the parties were provided an opportunity to correct, and this is not something that we are obliged to do." This statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the EC's legal obligations. Under the Public Elections Regulations, the EC is, in fact, obliged to provide candidates the opportunity to make corrections. Regulation 9(2) of C.I. 127 explicitly mandates that candidates be given time to rectify anomalies before any final decision is made on disqualification. Jean Mensa’s claim that this

was done out of goodwill and not legal necessity is patently false and indicates a worrying disregard for due process.

Misleading Candidates: A Strategy?

Mensa further stated that the EC "wrote to each and every one of you within the nomination period and even provided you with the particulars of where the corrections had to be made." But this claim crumbles under scrutiny. In a letter dated 13th September 2024 sent to the PPP, titled “Presidential Nomination Vetting Committee's Report,” the EC vaguely noted “incomplete particulars” without providing specific details. The list of incomplete forms spanned multiple pages, yet no clarification was given. This lack of transparency and specificity forced candidates to navigate a maze of opaque information. Given that the nomination window is a crucial period for candidates, this failure to provide clear guidance suggests either incompetence or, more worryingly, an intentional strategy to trip up candidates.

The EC’s Inconsistent Approach to Forgery and Criminality

The most damning part of Mensa’s remarks came when she stated, "what we have maintained is that where there is criminality, we do not allow you to correct it, and it is not in our place to point it out to you." This raises a critical question: if the EC suspected forgery or fraud in a candidate's nomination forms, why did they proceed to request corrections? According to the legal maxim fraud vitiates everything, once fraud is detected, the entire process is tainted. The EC cannot pick and choose what errors candidates can correct while leaving alleged fraud unaddressed. The notion that the EC can suspect criminality and yet allow the forms to circulate for correction is both illogical and dangerous. Was the EC setting up candidates for failure by withholding critical information only to pull out a "gotcha" moment at the disqualification stage?

Facilitating or Disqualifying Candidates?

A disturbing theme runs through the entire disqualification process: the EC appears to have been more focused on disqualifying candidates than facilitating a fair and transparent election. Despite its duty as a neutral arbiter, the EC’s actions — from vague disqualification letters to the lack of clear guidelines on form submission — indicate an underlying bias. This raises a fundamental question: is the EC in the business of facilitating the democratic process or engineering outcomes that suit certain interests?

A Gross Display of Laziness

Mensa’s defense of the EC’s committees, which she claimed had worked hard to vet the candidates, rings hollow. She asserted that the committees "pointed the details out to you and made it very, very easy for you to correct it overnight." However, many candidates have publicly stated that they received little to no detailed guidance from the EC. Further, the fact that candidates were left to figure out basic details, such as missing sections for endorser contact numbers and tax clearance certificates, belies her claim of transparency. It is worth noting that basic school teachers across Ghana mark papers for dozens of students overnight, yet the EC, tasked with reviewing just 24 candidates, provided opaque feedback and shoddy work. This is a gross display of laziness by an institution tasked with safeguarding democracy every four years.

Discriminatory Practices and Lack of Transparency

Former President John Mahama aptly captured the sentiment of many Ghanaians when he stated that the PNC’s candidate, Bernard Mornah, was more qualified than some of the names on the ballot. Mahama pointed to the discriminatory nature of the EC's process, a claim bolstered by the EC's failure to reveal the identities and qualifications of its vetting committee members. Jean Mensa herself admitted that she relies entirely on the verdicts of faceless individuals on these

committees, and yet, she confidently claimed there was no discrimination. How can the public trust a process that is shrouded in secrecy and managed by individuals whose qualifications and impartiality remain unknown?

Ignoring Court Precedents

The most alarming statement from Mensa came when she justified the EC’s decision to proceed with printing ballot papers despite ongoing court cases. She claimed, "we do not envisage at all that there will be a reason to reverse anything" and "we do not envisage that any loss to the state would occur." This is not only arrogant but legally dubious. The EC has lost cases before, such as the Nduom Supreme Court case, where printing was not rushed and a judgment was reached in November — not at the whim of the EC but through due legal process. Her casual dismissal of potential legal reversals is a clear violation of the principle of fairness and judicial independence.

Conclusion: An Institution in Crisis

The EC’s actions, under Jean Mensa’s leadership, demonstrate a clear departure from its mandate to ensure free, fair, and transparent elections. The lack of candor, the disregard for legal obligations, and the disturbing pattern of secrecy and bias point to an institution that is failing in its duty to the people of Ghana. The disqualification process appears to be a deliberate attempt to exclude certain candidates rather than an honest effort to uphold the integrity of the election.

In the interest of justice, transparency, and fairness, the EC must be held accountable for its actions. Ghana’s democracy deserves better than an Electoral Commission that operates with such impunity, leaving candidates and the public in the dark while making arbitrary decisions that affect the future of the nation. If there was ever a time to demand accountability from the EC, that time is now.