Prior to the 2016 general election which saw the opposition party by then, the New Patriotic Party(N.P.P.)assuming power from the then N.D.C. led Mahama government. From 2014 to date, many corruption allegations are leveled against the former president.
Vote-buying and corruption allegations against former president John Dramani Mahama have been thrown out by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ).
The Commission in a 10-page report, dismissed a petition by a pro-New Patriotic Party (NPP) group, Truth and Accountability Forum, indicating that it was without merit.
The group had petitioned CHRAJ claiming that ahead of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) presidential primaries last year, John Mahama presented some 40 vehicles to the party.
The Forum stated that the act, by the opposition flag bearer impacted the results of the election, which he won. They, however, requested CHRAJ to investigate the source of the funding for the vehicles donated to the party. However, CHRAJ stated in its report that, at the end of its preliminary investigation into the allegations;
a) That the Respondent, HE former President John Dramani Mahama, is not a public officer;
b) That the mandate of the Commission under Article 218 and Chapter 24 of the 1992 Constitution as well as s.7 (1) (a) and (c) of Act 456 deal specifically with public officers, and since the Commission has found as a fact that the position of a former President is not a public office, the anti-corruption investigative mandate of the Commission does not apply to the Respondent, a private citizen;
c) And that the Commission finds as a fact that Respondent is not complicit in any ongoing corruption investigation by the Commission involving any public officer(s), adding that “investigation of corruption allegations against a public officer that implicates a private person makes that private person liable to the Commission’s corruption investigation mandate based on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 218 of the 1992 Constitution in the Kamara case supra.”
