CHRAJ clears EC boss

 

The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has cleared the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC), Jean Mensa over her alleged failure to declare her assets pursuant to 286 of the Constitution and Act 550.

According to the Commission in its reports following a complaint lodged by pro-NDC group, Alliance for Social Equity and Public Accountability (ASEPA) that the EC boss failed to comply with assets declaration requirements for public office holders, Ms Mensa took the necessary steps to declare her assets and liabilities with the Auditor General.

This, CHRAJ says satisfied the requirement hence there was no need to further investigate the complaint made against her.

Complaint

ASEPA had made a case that per Article 286 of the 1992 Constitution public office holders within certain categories were mandated to within three months upon assumption of office declare their assets and liabilities with the Auditor General.

According to the group, Ms Mensa who took office on August 1,2018 failed to comply with the provisions of Article 286.

This, ASEPA said was a clear exhibition of misconduct and a violation of the laws of Ghana by Madam Mensa.

CHRAJ Report

CHRAJ in its report after preliminary investigations indicated that following the complaint filed by the ASEPA, CHRAJ felt that there was the need to invite the EC boss to respond to the allegations made against her.

The report signed by Joseph Whittal, the Commissioner stated that Ms Mensa informed the Commission that she had filed her assets and liabilities with the Auditor-General.

The report said the EC boss attached a copy of the official receipt dated 17 February 2019 from the Office of the Auditor-General as evidence that she had submitted her Assets Declaration Form as at the date the complaint was filed.

The Commission concluded that the EC chair, having declared her assets and liabilities with the Auditor General, although late, the complaint did not warrant any further investigations.

Section 13(1)(b) of Act 456 provides: (1)’ The Commission may refuse to investigate a matter where in the course of the investigation of a complaint it appears to the Commission that having regard to the circumstances of the case a further investigation is not necessary.’

“Having established in the course of the investigation that the Respondent has now complied with Article 286, albeit late, the Commission is of the considered view that the appropriate action, having regard to the circumstances of the case, is to refuse to investigate the matter any further as further investigation would not be necessary,” the CHRAJ report stated.

 

Source: Daily Guide Network