Private legal practitioner, Martin Kpebu, has asked the Electoral Commission (EC) to release information on the procurement of services from some two consultants – if such a transaction took place.
Acting on behalf of his client, Earnest Henry Norgbey, the Member of Parliament for Ashaiman, Mr Kpebu has requested the EC to confirm or deny if it procured the services of one “Dr Ofori Adjei, an IT Consultant and Mr A. Akrofi, a Procurement Consultant.”
“In case your answer to the above question is in the affirmative, my client would want you to con him the procurement of the services or the said consultants was done in accordance with PART VI — METHODS AND PROCEDURES TO PROCURE CONSULTANTS – OF THE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ACT, 2003 (ACT 663) (AS AN/ENDED).
“My client humbly requests for a copy of the record of procurement proceedings for the procurement of the services of the said consultants as required by section 28 of Act 663 (as amended), if your answer to the enquiry in paragraph 3 is in the affirmative,” the letter addressed to EC Chair, Jean Mensa, and sighted by Joy News stated.
Mr Kpebu explained that his request has been made in exercise of Mr Norgbey’s fundamental right to information as enshrined in article 21(f) of the Constitution, (1992) and further detailed in the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989), which states that, “a person has the right to information, subject to provisions of this Act.”
Mr Kpebu also said in the letter that in consonance with the relevant sections of the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989), his client would prefer to be given a hardcopy of the document containing the above information.
“Alternatively, the said information may be given on a flash drive. My client is willing to bear the cost that will be incurred for the process,” he explained.
In the letter to the EC chairperson, Mr Kpebu further quoted section 23(1) of Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989), which states that “where an application for access is received by a public institution, the information officer shall take a decision on the application and send a written notice to the applicant within fourteen days from the date of receipt of the application,” to drive home his point.
“Section 23(5) of Act 989 further states, ‘where an information officer fails to determine an application within fourteen days after the application is received by the public institution, the application is deemed to have been refused and the applicant has the right to seek redress under sections 31 to 39’” he stated.
Parliament last year passed the Right to Information (RTI) Bill into law.
The RTI law is expected to provide for the operationalisation of the constitutional right to information held by the public and some private institutions, subject to exemptions that are necessary and consistent with the protection of public interest in a democratic society.
It also seeks to foster a culture of transparency and accountability in public affairs and to provide for related matters.
The RTI Bill was first drafted in 1999, reviewed in 2003, 2005 and 2007 but was only presented to Parliament in 2010. It could not be passed due to the many recommendations to the amendment. It was brought back to the Sixth Parliament but could not be passed till the expiration of that Parliament on January 6, 2016.
