Elections in Ghana are rarely quiet or uneventful. They come with tension, high expectations, and close scrutiny from political parties, civil society, the media, and citizens alike each eager to applaud success or highlight failure. In this context, the performance of the Electoral Commission of Ghana and its Chairperson during the 7th December 2016 general elections warrants careful, balanced, and objective assessment. Beyond political sentiment, legal disputes, and media commentary, it is essential to examine how the Commission planned, managed, and executed the elections, upheld democratic principles, and maintained institutional integrity under intense pressure.
Sometimes one can be a lonely voice, but consistency ultimately brings vindication. Since the appointment of the Electoral Commissioner, Mrs. Charlotte Osei, many people including those who should have known better questioned her appointment and even took the matter to court. However, the court upheld her appointment. Some individuals, driven by partisan political expediency, went further to attack her personality, hurling insults in an attempt to discredit her. It is unfortunate that some people we refer to as honourables behaved dishonourably by descending into personal attacks, insults, and name-calling. Despite all these challenges, she remained firm, composed, and successfully delivered the elections.
The organization of any major project, including the conduct of elections, involves two key stages: planning and execution. The planning stage of an election involves decision-making, establishing legal and administrative frameworks, providing the necessary facilities and equipment, and developing strategies to ensure effective execution. From the time Charlotte Osei was appointed Electoral Commissioner, she made concerted efforts to reorganize and rebrand the Electoral Commission of Ghana, especially in light of the challenges the institution faced following the 2013 Election Petition arising from the 2012 general elections.
Many people expressed divergent views on this reorganization, some of which, in my estimation, were sectional and distracting. Some critics even described the rebranding exercise as an unnecessary waste of national resources. In my candid opinion, creating a state agency logo without clear national symbols such as the Coat of Arms or the national flag raises concerns about representativeness. Nevertheless, despite my initial reservations about the unrepresentative nature of the new logo, the rebranding exercise was necessary, particularly in line with modern global corporate strategic planning models that emphasize institutional identity and public image. After the inauguration and the explanations provided, many of my concerns were addressed, especially considering the concepts adopted and the symbolic use of Ghana’s national colours red, gold, and green.
The preparation for the elections was also challenged by numerous court cases brought against the Commission. Some of these cases were upheld, while others were dismissed. The Commission respected the rulings of the courts and factored them into both its planning and execution processes. Unfortunately, some divisive and unobjective commentators concluded that the Commission had failed simply because it lost certain court cases. A key question every forward-looking analyst must ask is: Did the Commission respect the decisions of the court? If the answer is yes, then the Commission cannot be faulted, as respect for the rule of law is fundamental to democratic governance.
The filling and filing of nomination forms also generated controversy, for which the Electoral Commission was heavily criticized. Some political parties were disqualified because they failed to complete the forms correctly some provided false information, while others left sections blank. Surprisingly, certain commentators argued that the Commission acted wrongly by disqualifying these parties. Consequently, when some parties won court cases challenging their disqualification, critics claimed that the Commission had failed and even called for the resignation of the Electoral Commissioner. However, the Commission’s strategic decision to seek legal interpretation from the Supreme Court proved prudent. The Supreme Court asserted its authority, halted parallel legal proceedings, and allowed the electoral process to continue. This included matters relating to the declaration of special voting results.
A critical measure of institutional performance is respect for the laws that establish the institution and adherence to proper procedures. From a critical standpoint, the Electoral Commission respected court rulings and made genuine efforts to implement them. Throughout the frequent legal battles, many individuals and civil society organizations appeared to side more with litigants against the Commission rather than supporting the state institution itself. Ironically, these same groups often quote former U.S. President Barack Obama’s call for strong institutions. Strong institutions are built not only through sound laws but also through the support of the state, civil society, and honest, objective intellectual engagement.
No state institution can function effectively without systemic support from both the state and the citizenry. This does not suggest blind support for the Commission. Rather, citizens must critically evaluate its actions, acknowledging what it does well, identifying areas for improvement, and recommending corrective measures. In my view, some of the political parties that were disqualified and even those later reinstated did not merit participation due to their own administrative failures. Unfortunately, the Electoral Commission was blamed for the incompetence and irresponsibility of some political parties. This position is reinforced by the Supreme Court’s final judgment, which ultimately brought closure to the legal disputes.
The execution of the elections faced several challenges, particularly during the special voting process, which was largely blamed on the Commission. However, many overlooked the fact that the rules governing special voting were revised in 2016 to improve the system. Previously, special voters could vote at any polling station. In 2016, however, special voters were required to vote within their constituencies, and institutions submitting names of eligible personnel were mandated to include polling station codes and voter ID numbers. Several institutions failed to comply with these requirements, resulting in omissions from the special voting list. Even during the second special voting exercise, similar mistakes occurred, yet the blame was placed squarely on the Commission.
Election Day itself 7th December was largely successful, with only minor delays at some polling stations. Elections were postponed in Jaman North Constituency and parts of Afram Plains, but the Electoral Commission managed these challenges effectively and professionally.
Despite intense scrutiny, legal challenges, and public criticism, the Electoral Commission of Ghana, under Mrs. Charlotte Osei, demonstrated resilience, adherence to the rule of law, and effective management throughout the 2016 general elections. While challenges arose in both planning and execution, the Commission addressed them within legal frameworks, ensuring a largely credible, peaceful, and orderly electoral process. The 2016 elections highlight the critical role of strong institutions, lawful procedures, and objective evaluation in sustaining Ghana’s democratic governance. Ultimately, the performance of the Commission reaffirmed that consistency, professionalism, and institutional integrity are fundamental to the successful conduct of national elections.
New Analysis by Moses A. Katamani
Date: 5th January, 2017
Email: infomoskambel@gmail.com
Website: www.kambelconsult.com