A THSJ Accountability Feature, BVMS, Elections & Public Money Series
Ghana’s Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has ruled that it has full authority to investigate a complaint filed by IMANI Centre for Policy and Education against the Electoral Commission (EC). IMANI alleges the EC disposed of Ghana’s election machines through a public auction, a method often favouring insiders and bargain hunters, instead of a transparent tender process required when state assets still hold significant value.
The case concerns more than old gadgets gathering dust. These were biometric verification devices, registration kits, laptops, scanners, printers and cameras, refurbished and successfully used in the 2018 Referendum and 2019 District Assembly Elections. Some were almost new, yet they were bundled and sold like scrap, as if every unit were a broken-down trotro struggling up Aburi hills.
The Stakes Behind the Machines
Every voter under Ghana’s sun trusts the biometric device to guard their power. When such equipment becomes the subject of waste and secrecy claims, confidence in elections falters.
IMANI’s May 6, 2024 petition traces back to the EC’s decision to retire and auction its older biometric devices. The think tank says the process raised serious red flags about transparency and value for money.
This is not just another political quarrel. It is about how public money is spent, how voter data is protected, and how faith in elections is sustained.
The Heart of the Complaint
IMANI does not oppose upgrading technology. But it argues the EC wrongly classified all legacy devices as “OBSOLETE,” ignoring the fact that many were still functional and performing well, according to election observers.
Instead of item-by-item valuation, everything was lumped together, like a farmer selling fresh and rotten tomatoes in one pan, ensuring the price matched the worst, not the best. IMANI says this cost the state millions in potential revenue.
The Silent Threat: Voter Data
More alarming is the data issue. The machines contained the fingerprints and personal information of millions of voters. IMANI says the recycling company that handled some of them lacked the required national certification to securely wipe or destroy sensitive data.
The EC later called in Police to retrieve some devices, a move that suggests something went wrong. Democracy doesn’t only fail when votes are rigged; it fails when voter identity is exposed.
Money, Power, and Accountability
IMANI argues this goes beyond poor housekeeping, pointing to procurement abuse, asset misclassification, and possible conflicts of interest. CHRAJ’s constitutional role is to probe such allegations.
Ghanaians paid for the old machines. Ghanaians paid again for the new ones. Now Ghanaians want to know whether someone quietly profited at their expense.
The Big Irony
The EC said the old system was unreliable. Yet in the 2020 elections, failure rates with the new equipment rose to 10.3%, far higher than the 4–6.7% range under the older devices.
New machines, more failure. Old machines, cheaper, and perhaps better. So what made the old system “obsolete”? Technology, or convenience?
A Case Bigger Than Politics
A voter’s fingerprint is their power. But that power weakens when systems meant to protect it are compromised. This case tests whether Ghana safeguarded its money, its data, and its democracy, or took citizens for granted.
This is not about partisanship. It is about constitutional accountability.
The Journey Continues
CHRAJ has confirmed the matter falls squarely within its mandate. The EC denies wrongdoing. The investigation will determine where the truth lies, and whether Ghana deserves stronger stewardship of its electoral assets.
Next: Part 1 — Understanding Ghana’s BVMS
What we had, how it worked, and why it was replaced.
Because before we debate what was sold, we must understand what we once trusted to protect our vote.
