Five years ago, IMANI Ghana uncovered what it described as a troubling case of tender manipulation by the Electoral Commission (EC) in its procurement of a new Biometric Verification System (BVS).

Franklin Cudjoe, IMANI’s President, recently revisited the issue, emphasizing the organization’s stance and the evidence it presented at the time.

Reflecting on the revelations, Cudjoe reiterated IMANI’s core argument that the EC’s competitive tender process was compromised from the outset.

According to him, the process was engineered to ensure that Thales, a controversial multinational company, secured the contract.

“If, despite all the explanations, you are still confused about IMANI’s revelations of the EC’s tender rigging activities in the matter of the biometric system procurement, here is the short and quick version”
Franklin Cudjoe, President of IMANI Africa

Tender Manipulation

IMANI’s findings were based on a detailed chronological analysis of events, leading the organization to a firm conclusion.

Cudjoe explained that after the original Technical Evaluation Panel completed its assessment, it recommended five companies for consideration.

However, this recommendation did not align with the EC’s predetermined outcome.

“The Chairperson wrote back on December 18, 2019, asking that the two most experienced companies in biometric elections technology, who also posed the greatest threat to Thales, be dropped and a new report confirming the same be delivered the next day”
Franklin Cudjoe, President of IMANI Africa

Those companies, Idemia and Smartmatic, were excluded, despite their strong track records.

Meanwhile, Thales and two less experienced companies, Miru and Buck Press, were advanced to the financial evaluation phase.

When the original evaluation panel resisted this move, the EC allegedly took matters into its own hands.

“The EC’s management, having failed to prevail on the Chairman of the Technical Evaluation Panel, still went ahead and modified the score tallies to achieve their preferred outcome”
Franklin Cudjoe, President of IMANI Africa

This manipulated outcome was then submitted to the Central Tender Review Committee (CTRC) and the Public Procurement Authority (PPA) for approval.

But the chairman of the evaluation panel refused to endorse the report, distancing himself from what he saw as an engineered result.

Replacement of Technical Panel

In response to the resistance from the evaluation panel, the EC moved swiftly to dissolve it.

“The EC Chair responded by dissolving the technical panel on January 10, 2020, and set up a rubber stamp new committee on the same day,” Cudjoe stated.

This new panel acted in line with the EC’s alleged intentions, eliminating Idemia almost immediately. By January 13, Idemia was no longer in contention, and Thales’ path to victory became clearer.

IMANI’s investigations also highlighted glaring omissions in the evaluation process. Cudjoe explained that due diligence, background searches, and reputational risk assessments were completely ignored, which worked in Thales’ favor.

“The rubber stamp Technical Panel then went ahead to make the now-famous ‘no adverse risk sighted against Thales’ claim while using trumped-up charges in the Philippines to discredit Smartmatic”
Franklin Cudjoe, President of IMANI Africa

Electoral Commission Logo

Questionable Selection Process

Beyond the procedural concerns, Cudjoe highlighted that Thales had a questionable history.

The company had been blacklisted by the World Bank and was previously indicted for bribery in South Africa.

In contrast, Smartmatic, which had 21 successful major deployments, was disqualified despite its superior experience.

“How does a company with four relevant deployments outcompete another with 21?”

By January 24, 2020, the CTRC had quickly approved the EC’s selection, rubber stamping a process that IMANI believed to be flawed from the start.

IMANI’s Position and Public Accountability

Cudjoe addressed accusations that IMANI was working to favor Smartmatic. He dismissed these claims, pointing out that the think tank had opposed the procurement process even before any company had been selected.

“Upon exposing these sham arrangements, IMANI has been accused of championing the interests of Smartmatic. Yet even before the tender had been concluded, IMANI had expressed vehement opposition to the whole process”
Franklin Cudjoe, President of IMANI Africa

Moreover, he rejected the notion that IMANI should have taken the matter to court, insisting that the responsibility for legal action lay with state institutions.

“Some apologists say that IMANI should go to court then. IMANI is not a law enforcement agency. There are at least seven major state institutions empowered and resourced to address the abuses we have exposed”
Franklin Cudjoe, President of IMANI Africa

A Broader Concern

Beyond the specific concerns about Thales and the tender process, Cudjoe underscored the broader implications of the EC’s actions.

He noted that a commission incapable of running a professional tender process could not be trusted to implement a reliable biometric system.

Furthermore, he argued that the EC’s insistence on a new system was not driven by necessity, as the existing one was still functional.

“Both concerns go to support our argument all along that the EC’s intentions have little to do with the obsolescence of the existing system.”

IMANI’s revelations regarding the EC’s procurement process raises significant questions about transparency and accountability.

The organization’s findings suggest that the commission had deliberately steered the tender in favor of a preselected company, disregarding financial prudence and due process.

Cudjoe’s remarks reinforced IMANI’s long-standing concerns about electoral integrity, procurement governance, and public accountability.

As Ghana continues to strengthen its democratic institutions, he emphasized that such scrutiny remains essential in ensuring that electoral processes are conducted fairly and that public resources are utilized responsibly.