| |
|
|
|
Commentary Page
We invite commentaries from writers all over. The subject is about
Ghana and the world. We reserve the right to accept or reject
submissions, but we are not necessarily responsible for the opinions
expressed in articles we publish......MORE
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
11th April, 2016
NPP Press Release
NPP’S INPUT:
EC’S PROPOSED AUDIT OF THE VOTERS REGISTER
The Electoral
Commission sent a document on the “mechanism for
auditing the voters register” to the New
Patriotic Party and other members of the
Interparty Advisory Committee (IPAC), asking for
the input of the party to be sent to the
Commission by the close of work on Monday 11th
April, 2016.
Below is the NPP’s
considered opinion on the document and the
procedure the EC is choosing to rely on
ostensibly to give the country a clean, credible
electoral list for the 2016 general elections.
BACKGROUND
In October 2015, the
Electoral Commission constituted a panel of five
prominent people and experts—namely his lordship
Justice VCRAC Crabbe (Chairman of the Panel),
Most Rev Prof Emmanuel E Asante, Dr Mrs Grace
Bediako, Alhaji Bin Salih, and Dr Nii Narku
Quaynor—to “hear proposals from the various
stakeholders, engage the critical stakeholders,
collect and collate views from the stakeholders,
analyse the views and at a public forum, conduct
the hearings in a free, transparent, fair and
objective manner on the issue of the register of
voters, and provide recommendations to the
Electoral Commission.”
The two-day public
forum took place on October 19 and 20, 2015. The
consensus was that the current voters’ register
was bloated but the controversy was whether to
compile a new register or to clean up the
existing one. On December 21, 2015, the Panel of
Five presented its report to the Electoral
Commission.The Panel opted on the side of
cleaning the register and at pages 17 to 20,
laid out a clear roadmap for doing so.
The Report of the
Justice VCRAC Crabbe Panel, which the Electoral
Commission appointed, estimates the total number
of voters to be captured on the electoral roll
for this year’s general elections to be
15,504,207after the planned limited
registration. Out of this, it calculates the
number of living people qualified to be on the
final register to be around 14,535,987. The
Panel Report, using data from both the EC and
the Ghana Statistical Service, calculates that
the current updated, de-duplicated register
(2014) is bloated, larger than the total
estimate of people eligible to be on the list.
AUDIT OF THE VOTERS’
REGISTER
The NPP finds it as
very unfortunate that, in spite of all the known
inadequacies associated with the way it has been
doing things, the EC still wants to repeat the
same discredited processes in 2016. The EC has
opted for auditing of the voters’ register as
the means to present a credible register for the
2016 elections. In fact, it has ignored
recommendations from its own consultant on how
best to do an audit and has even refused to
share the recommendations of the consultant with
the NPP, despite public assurances to that
effect.
In May 2014, before
the limited voter registration of that year,
political parties-- notably, the New Patriotic
Party, Convention People’s Party and the
Progressive People’s Party--and civil society
groups, called for an audit of the 2012
biometric voters’ register.
See
http://elections.peacefmonline.com/pages/politics/201405/200400.php
On June 6, 2014, at
a public forum organized by the National
Commission for Civic Education under the theme:
"Beyond August 29 verdict: Lessons and path
Ahead" and in the presence of Mrs Charlotte Osei
and Justice VCRAC Crabbe, the then Chairman of
the Electoral Commission, DrAfari-Gyan,
responded to the calls for an audit of the
register by simply dismissing it. To the EC
Chair then, there was nothing wrong with the
register and, to quote him, “besides I don’t
know what auditing of the register means.”
To him, as he
explained at that NCCE Dialogue Series, the
mandatory public exhibition of the provisional
register, which took place before the December
2012 general elections was all the auditing that
was necessary and since that had been done there
was no need for a post-election audit.
See
http://graphic.com.gh/news/politics/24530-ec-wont-audit-register.html
Dr Afari-Gyan wanted
to limit auditing to the exhibition process and
his defence was that there was nothing wrong
with the register. But, with the current
consensus that the current register contains
more names than the total number of people
eligible to register to vote in Ghana, why
should the Charlotte-Osei-led EC be towing the
same line as her predecessor?
In her 29-page
response to the NPP, dated December 30, 2015,
the head of the EC disclosed that “On October 3,
2015, with donor support, the Electoral
Commission procured the services of an
independent consultant to examine the Biometric
Voters register.” The EC went to say it had
received “the final report from the Consultant
on the Independent Review of the Biometric
Voters’ Register.”
Why has the EC
refused to disclose to the stakeholders and the
general public the report of the consultant?
The independent
expert used by the EC, the former ICT Director
of Kenya’s Independent Electoral and Boundaries
Commission (IBEC), Mr. DismasOng’ondi, went
before the VCRAC Crabbe’s five-member committee
at the EC office on November 17, 2015, and said,
Ghana “must find means of addressing the
underlying issues of bloated register” and that
“In Kenya the auditing process was completed
within a period of three (3) months and if that
is exactly what the EC may consider, it should
not wait any longer.”
His recommendation
to Ghana, as stated in Appendix D page 9 of the
Panel Report, says that a proper auditing of the
voters’ register must involve the following:-
1. Computer Test:-,
which he explains as “Analysis drawing patterns
of age, gender, etc.”
2. Statistical
Analysis:- List of registered voters to list (by
random selection)
3. People to list:-
“Which,” in the words of the consultant himself,
“is accurate and more comprehensive approach,
using the addresses [of registered voters
captured in the data] to locate individual
voters.”
Why has the EC
completely ignored this recommendation if the
Commission is indeed serious about doing proper
audit of the register?
USING EXHIBITION TO
AUDIT VOTERS’ REGISTER
The EC, in
requesting for inputs for the audit it wants to
do now, describes it as a “Collaborative,
inclusive, transparent and legal process,” and
that the entire auditing exercise “will take
place during the exhibition process on the
election calendar. ”
Thus, the EC intends
to use the discredited challenge procedure
available at the exhibition stage of the
provisional register of voters and hopes that a
credible register will emerge in the end. We
find this most odd.
How does the EC then
reconcile this unyielding faith in the
exhibition process with its own admission in its
response to the NPP on December 30, 2015, that,
as compared to other African countries, Ghana
has a far larger percentage of its population on
the register because, "Processes for challenging
registration of prospective voters in other
jurisdictions are more effective?" Why does the
EC insist on using a process itself considers to
be ineffective to effect the provision of a
clean register?
Indeed, the VCRAC
Crabbe Panel Report does not see the procedure
presented by the exhibition of the voters’
register as a good enough measure for removing
invalid names from the list. It makes the case
at Pages 17-18 of the Report as follows:
a) Judging by the
sheer numbers, the Electoral Commission’s
proposition to display the register, with
political party representatives, the Electoral
Commission and citizenry to identify and point
out invalid names, is not a viable approach.
Particularly when the persons who identify these
records are expected to expend their time,
energy and resources not only to provide the
evidence but also to testify before a court of
competent jurisdiction. The efficacy if the
current provisions may be assessed by the fact
that in spite of this system having been in
place, there were 8,000 registrants in 2014 who
may have been minors on the list since 2012.
b) The signal is
that the system is not effective in achieving
the set goals of eliminating invalid records
from the register and must be reconsidered.It is
said that you cannot do the same thing and
expect different results. The challenges with
relying on the ordinary citizen to suggest who
may not be eligible to vote or which names
should not be in the register stems from the
fact that:
1. The list is not
ordered in a way that would make it possible to
spot invalid records (alphabetic order and not
following residential address system; too many
names for anyone to manage the task).
2. Not enough time
given for the exercise.
3. There is the
assumption that people are known in their
communities.
4. The potential for
several persons having the same name.
5. The setup is
potentially confrontational.
CARDINAL PRINCIPLES
1. The EC says “the
audit process will address three categories of
unqualified persons on the register: deceased
persons, minors and foreigners as well as
multiple registrations.”
2. And, that, "He
who alleges must prove." It is important that
the EC does not stretch this principle to give
the Exhibition Officer a power he/she does not
have. The Exhibition Officer cannot demand
evidence from those who seek to raise objections
to the inclusion of certain names on the
register. The job of the Exhibition Officer, as
provided in Regulations 23(c), 24(e) and (f) and
25 of the Public Elections (Registration of
Voters) Regulations, 2016 (CI 91) is only to
ensure that the complainant fills Form Seven and
that filled form is passed on to the District
Officer of the Commission, who according to
Regulation 26, mustsubmit the complaints and
objections to the District Registration Review
Officer (in the person of a District Magistrate)
for determination. It is only at that stage that
the person who is alleging must show prove. We
believe the EC must make this matter very clear
in order to avoid any confrontation at the
Exhibition Centre.
3. On the principal
that “Every person against whom an
objection/challenge is made must be given the
opportunity to be heard,” it must again be made
clear that the forum for that opportunity is
before the District Registration Review Officer.
This is provided in Regulation 26 (5)(a), which
reads, “a party to an issue shall be heard in
person or may be represented by a lawyer.”
DECEASED PERSONS ON
THE REGSTER
The EC concedes,
"Absence of a comprehensive up to date register
of deaths is the key challenge. Requires support
and collaboration of all Ghanaians to address."
Yet, it seems to be limiting this exercise to
identify the estimated 600,000 dead names on the
register to government agencies and "relatives"
of deceased persons. This position must be
clarified because CI 91 at Regulation 23 (2)(C)
allows any “person entitled to be registered as
a voter” to “object as set out in Form Seven of
the Schedule on the ground that the person is
not qualified to be registered as a voter.”
When does the EC
intend to write to all government agencies to
furnish the Commission with the names and
details of deceased persons from 2012? We also
seek clarification on what the EC means by that
the names of the deceased will be removed “upon
confirmation”. Does that mean that if nobody
comes forward at the exhibition centre to
confirm death, the evidence of the official
death certificate from the Births & Registry
will not be enough to have such names removed?
The EC says,
"Extensive engagement and education to encourage
members of the public to go to the exhibition
centres and district offices of the EC with the
particulars of their dead family members (eg
Funeral posters, death certificates, funeral
invitation cards, burial certificates, body
deposit /collection forms etc.) and the Voter
Identity Card of the deceased relatives if
available to have such names deleted from the
Register."
This must not be
stretched to deny party agents their lawful
right to object. Any voter may object the
inclusion of any name on the register at the
exhibition stage.
Page 20 of the Panel
Report is instructive in seeing exhibition as
not an effective way of ridding the register of
dead people. It reads:
“It seems that doing
nothing more than the usual updating and waiting
for the citizenry to pursue those who are
illegally registered will engender the most
bloated register, by the mere fact that very few
names of the dead are likely to be brought up.”
FOREIGNERS & MINORS
Regarding foreigners
and minors, the EC is calling on "Members of the
Public and party observers" to object during
"registration and exhibition." For minors, the
EC is prepared to take extra steps, namely,
requesting first time registrants to "provide
their weighing cards, Baptismal certificates,
birth certificates to assist in establishing
their ages. Also requested to provide school
records e.g. last report cards to assist EC in
making a determination as to age in the absence
of other documentation." But, where a person is
suspected to be a foreigner, the EC is mute. Our
contention is that the EC has no legal basis to
even request of suspected minors to provide any
other document other than what is expressly
stated in law. In fact, no such evidence is
required to challenge an objection at the
exhibition centre. Those matters must be left to
the judicial discretion of the District
Registration Review Officer.
On the 30th of July
2014, the Supreme Court ruled that it was wrong
for the EC to allow the use of NHIS cards as
proof of qualification to register. In her
December 30, 2015 reply to the NPP, Mrs
Charlotte Osei argued thus:
a. “The current
challenge procedures under CI 72 are sufficient
to deal with all registered voters who presented
NHIA cards as proof of citizenship.
b. Such voters must
also be given the opportunity to present
additional proof of citizenship if available,
before they are struck off the register.”
The EC appears to
have finally come round to the reality that the
register for 2016 cannot contain names that got
on the list using NHIS cards. The EC, in its
response to the NPP, is now saying it is of the
view that “prior to the invalidation of their
registration,” it would “be fair and proper for
all such persons to also be heard.”
This, in principle,
is a clear admission on the part of the EC now
that we cannot go into the next general election
with a register containing millions of people
who got on there using an identification
document which the Supreme Court has ruled to be
unconstitutional.
The question now is
this: how does the EC intend to use this
exhibition exercise to handle this
constitutional responsibility of purging the
register of all such illegal entries and giving
those who are eligible to vote another
opportunity to now register legally? In the
words of the EC’s own independent consultant of
the biometric voters’ register, Mr Dimas, “would
it be possible to identify the number of persons
who registered with NHIS cards?”
The EC has shifted
the responsibility of identifying people who
registered using NHIS cards to political parties
and ordinary citizens at the exhibition of
register stage. How does the EC intend for an
ordinary voter with no access to the EC database
to identify which person(s) registered using an
NHIS card?
The EC made a
similar argument of using exhibition to
challenge illegal entries, which was squarely
rejected by the Supreme Court in the Abu Ramadan
case, where it was held:
“in any event,
process for challenging or complaints about the
inclusion of unqualified individuals under
Regulation 16 of CI 72 is dangerous and must be
rejected. No amount of rationalisation can
justify this contention. Plainly in our view,
that challenge mechanism is the final window of
opportunity for removing the names of those
unscrupulous inidivuals, who in spite of the
necessary due diligence, all possible human care
and attention, have nonetheless managed to slip
through the net, beat the system, so to speak,
and fraudulentlu managed to have their names
included as qualified individuals.”
The Supreme Court
went on to say:
“From a fair reading
of the entire legislation, one may want to
question the wisdom and propriety of handling
this important national constitutional exercise,
namely the rather taxing and expensive process
of registration without regard to legality and
in a slip-shod manner, on the assumption that
the challenge mechanism will correct any errors
or flaws.”
ORDINARILY RESIDENT
Regulation 1 (1) pf
CI 91 lays out the qualification for
registration:
• A citizen of Ghana
• Eighteen years of
age or above
• Of sound mind
• Resident or
ordinarily resident in an electoral area; and
• Not prohibited by
any law in force from registering as a voter.
In order for the
exhibition to be meaningful the EC must provide
the addresses of the names of the people on the
list to the political parties.
CI 91 makes it
mandatory for every registered voter to be
“ordinarily resident” in the electoral area he
or she registers to vote. The enforcement of
this provision is necessary to avoid foreigners
crossing over the border into Ghana to register
to vote.
DURING EXHIBITION
The EC appears to be
picking and choosing the suggestions/proposals
in the Panel Report regarding
validation/verification. The Panel at pages
17-20 proposed for the validation exercise to
take place during the exhibition period; for the
period to be extended; for BVD machines to be
provided for registered voters to be
validated/verified. The EC says it is doing all
this and even prepared to take the exhibition
exercise to every polling station.
The only thing
missing is the last aspect of what the EC itself
says this whole auditing at the exhibition
centres must involve, "collaborative, inclusive,
transparent and legal process". What the EC
wants to do is to have a validation without
backing it with a "legal process" to make it
mandatory. Why so?
This is because
without making validation mandatory, the process
of removing dead persons will be ineffective.
Without making it mandatory non-nationals who
are already on the register but may be now be
afraid to show up at the exhibition centre for
fear of repercussions will still have their
names on the register. Also, the fact that the
exhibition will be available online even serves
as a disincentive for people to show up at the
exhibition centre.
The EC justifies its
intention to use BVDs at Exhibition Centres for
the following reasons: “To get people who check
on their names to be verified during exhibition,
this apart from authenticating the voters, would
also reduce the incidents of false verification
and improve efficiency of BVDs on election day.”
The question is, if
the idea behind the use of BVDs is to validate,
verify or authenticate voters, then why is the
EC afraid of making it mandatory? Without it,
those who know are on the register illegally
will simply not show up for exhibition and the
EC will have no power to remove their names. If
the EC is genuine and sincere about this
verification exercise then it must be backed by
law, just as the use of BVDs is backed by law.
Why would the EC
wants to depend entirely on a method which
itself and its own panel of experts say does not
work? The Panel Report gives a damning verdict
on the exhibition exercise. To the panel, it is
not good enough “relying on the ordinary citizen
to suggest who may not be eligible to vote or
which names should not be in the register” for
several reasons.
BIG MESS
Finally, the NPP
wants to let the EC know that it is going to
create a big mess relying on the challenge
procedure during exhibition. The party intends
to challenge every single illegal entry on the
register. We have gone around communities and
have, for example, discovered that several
people with their names on the register do not
live in the communities they claim to live. We
could have over one million challenges on our
hands during this exhibition process and going
through the painstaking process of looking at
each individual case on its merits before a
Magistrate could take up to six months to
resolve! This is the more reason why we need a
validation backed by law which makes it
mandatory.
The Committee goes
further to lay out the advantages of what it
calls “validation/verification/authentication”,
interchangeably. It is our submission that
validation, backed by law, is the only available
viable option to give Ghanaians a more credible
register, considering the amount of time left.
Our checks show that
Ghanaians, eager for a peaceful, free and fair
polls in 2016 will be keen to be given the
opportunity to validate the inclusion of their
names on the voters’ list by turning up at a
registration or exhibition centre to have their
fingerprints biometrically verified, their
facial image cross-checked with the EC database,
and by presenting an additional, legally
approved personal identification document to
justify their eligibility to register to vote in
Ghana.
We would urge the EC
to look once again at the words from the VCRAC
Crabbe Committee as contained in the Panel
Report and reproduced below:
“It may be expedient
to try to find a middle ground to creating a new
register through a completely new registration
process. The Electoral Commission could consider
extending the exhibition exercise to have voters
confirm their names on the list, an indication
that they would want to maintain their voter
status.
The benefits include
signaling that the Electoral Commission is doing
something about the known flaws in the register;
the more cost-effective approach is being used.
In the same way that a new registration would
have required citizens to physically appear for
registration, the cleaning would require that
they appear to confirm. The major difference is
they spend less time because no forms are
filled.
Rather than make
others responsible for maintaining voters’ name
on the list, the individuals should themselves
do that. This also avoids the issue of people
looking for documents to support any claim to
get a record removed. This is largely what
happens with the current system of hoping
invalid names would be detected. It would be
important to use this opportunity to call on all
who are not eligible to voluntarily get their
names off without facing any prosecution.”
MULTIPLE
REGISTRATION
For the AFIS
exercise, the EC says it has improved the
software. We will call for an independent
assessment of the system. This is because the EC
has never been transparent to stakeholders on
the integrity of the technology used and this
raises serious doubts.
CONCLUSION
We consider the
whole talk about people being disenfranchised if
validation is made mandatory as a red herring.
The EC compiled a new register in 2012.
Automatically those who failed to show up but
had their names on the previous register were
not able to vote in 2012. But, nothing stopped
them from getting their names back on the
register for subsequent elections. Voting is a
right but it is not compulsory.
It is important we
keep the records of registered voters up to date
and credible otherwise it defeats the whole
purpose of one-man-one-vote. Even for
registration there is an administrative cut off
point, where after a period even if your name is
on the register but not in time to go through
the process of exhibition, etc., you will lose
the opportunity to vote in thatgiven election.
We take instructions
from Regulation 9 (4) of CI 91,2016." The
Commission shall include in the register of
Voters, the name of a person who qualifies for
registration as a voter and is registered but
shall not include in the register of Voters the
name of a person who qualifies to register as a
voter for an election but who registers less
than sixty days to that election. ".
The EC has shown
with the way that it intends to undertake this
exhibition process with validation machines in
all polling stations that it has the resources,
in terms of personnel, equipment and funds to
undertake verification or validation or
authentication. What is left is for it to make
it mandatory so that it can truly serve as a
proper and necessary auditing process.
...Signed...
Martin Korsah
(Director, Election) |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
| |
SPONSORSHIP AD HERE |
|
 |
|
|
|
