Kabu Nartey, a former representative on the General Assembly for the University of Ghana School of Law and now a legal activist, has shared his perspective on the recent leaked audio involving the UGSRC Electoral Commission (EC) Chairman, Mudassir Braimah.
In the controversial audio, Mudassir is purportedly heard advising a presidential candidate on selecting a running mate, which has sparked accusations of bias and ethical breaches. However, Nartey offers a nuanced take on the situation, suggesting that the context of the conversation has been misrepresented.
“Professionally, the EC should not have put himself along that line. But he makes a point that the gentleman [Manuel Life] called him for brotherly advice and he saw him as someone who was disgruntled and wanted advice for himself,” Nartey remarked. “It seems it was two brothers speaking, and political propaganda has been put on it.”
Nartey emphasized the importance of examining the full context of the conversation, as partial recordings can mislead. “When you read cases of entrapment and abetment, the court will always ask for the full tape. It looks like this tape had some parts cut and does not help with understanding the full extent of the conversation.”
He also highlighted the informal tone of the discussion, pointing out that the use of phrases like “my brother, my brother” suggests a personal rather than an official dialogue. “The EC is a victim of propaganda, and some people want to make a good meal out of him, which is deservedly so because the EC is the most experienced so far, having been retained from last year. You would expect him to do better.”
Despite acknowledging the EC Chair’s potential missteps, Nartey argued that the motivations behind the leak were likely malicious. “The publishers of this audio did it out of malice, especially in the scheme of things. They want to bring the gentleman on the chopping board.”
Nartey concluded that while there might be questions about the EC Chair’s judgment, there is no constitutional basis for his removal. “In the context of the SRC constitution, if it is established that he compromised his office—which I didn’t see that, apart from the EC saying he is available for filing—I didn’t hear anything from the EC suggesting he is going to favor him, which would have contributed to him compromising his office. For me, you don’t see any constitutional grounds to remove him except on moral grounds.”
