POSITION PAPER AND PETITION ON THE PROPOSED ELECTRONIC VOTING ARRANGEMENTS FOR HEPSSOSA MAIDEN ELECTIONS

Submitted by:

Concerned Members of
HEPSSOSA / Old Students Association
Hohoe E.P. Secondary School, Hohoe

Date: 17th February, 2026

1. INTRODUCTION

We, concerned members of the Hohoe E.P. Secondary School Past Students and Old Students Association (HEPSSOSA), respectfully submit this position paper to express our concerns regarding the proposed electronic voting arrangements for the association’s maiden elections.

As a newly organized association, the credibility, transparency, and integrity of our first elections will set the tone for trust, unity, and legitimacy in all future activities. It is therefore imperative that the electoral process is inclusive, affordable, transparent, and verifiable by all stakeholders.

2. KEY CONCERNS

2.1 Imposition of a ₵20 Electronic Voting Fee

The proposed requirement that members must pay ₵20 to participate in electronic voting raises serious concerns:

• It creates an unnecessary financial barrier to participation.
• It may disenfranchise members, particularly those abroad or economically disadvantaged.
• Comparable international e-voting platforms operate at a significantly lower cost, with some offering free or near-free services for associations.

We submit that the right to vote in association elections should not be conditioned on an excessive fee.

2.2 Lack of Transparency in Vendor Selection

We are deeply concerned that a private company has reportedly been procured to run the elections without open consultation, competitive bidding, or formal approval by the general membership.

Best governance practices require that:

• Election service providers are selected through open and transparent processes;
• Stakeholders are informed in advance;
• The technical capacity and credibility of such providers are publicly evaluated.

The absence of these steps undermines confidence in the process.

2.3 Exclusion of the Association’s Internal IT Team

We find it troubling that the association’s own IT professionals and technically capable members are reportedly being prevented from:

• Reviewing the proposed system,
• Participating in system design or oversight,
• Conducting independent verification or audits.

Transparency and security are strengthened—not weakened—when internal expertise and independent oversight are encouraged.

2.4 Risks Associated With Closed or Proprietary Voting Systems

Any electronic voting system that:

• Does not allow independent auditing,
• Operates as a “black box”,
• Concentrates full control in the hands of a small group,

poses a risk to electoral integrity, regardless of who operates it.

For a maiden election, perceived credibility is just as important as technical functionality.

3. THE NEED FOR A TRANSPARENT AND TRUST-BASED APPROACH

We wish to emphasize that our concerns do not constitute an accusation of wrongdoing against any individual or company. Rather, they reflect the widely accepted principle that elections must not only be fair but must be seen to be fair.

Trust cannot be demanded; it must be earned through openness, accountability, and inclusion.

4. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES

We respectfully propose that the association considers internationally used, cloud-based electronic voting platforms that offer:

• End-to-end encryption,
• Independent verifiability,
• Observer access,
• Detailed audit logs,
• Lower per-voter cost.

Examples include open-source or widely adopted association-level platforms that can be:

• Demonstrated publicly before the election,
• Supervised by the Electoral Committee,
• Observed by representatives of candidates and interest groups.

5. SPECIFIC PETITIONS

We hereby respectfully petition that the association:

1. Suspends the current proposed electronic voting arrangement until broad stakeholder consultation is completed.
2. Reviews and removes the ₵20 voting fee or reduces it significantly to avoid voter suppression.
3. Allows the association’s IT team and independent observers to participate in the design, testing, and supervision of the e-voting system.
4. Publishes clear electoral procedures, including voter authentication, vote counting, and result verification processes.
5. Adopts a transparent, auditable, and cost-effective platform that commands broad confidence among members.

6. CONCLUSION

The maiden elections of HEPSSOSA represent a historic moment. They must be conducted in a manner that unites rather than divides, and that establishes trust rather than suspicion.

We firmly believe that transparency, inclusion, and accountability are the strongest safeguards against controversy and future disputes.

We submit this position paper in good faith and in the best interest of the association, trusting that leadership will give it the serious consideration it deserves.

The following documents will be attached to this petition for submission. The documents will also be available on all social media and chapter platforms.

Appendix A – An analysis of options and cost

Appendix A – Options and Cost Analysis

1. Core Concerns With the Proposed Arrangement

a) Cost Barrier (₵20 per voter)

• Charging ₵20 just to vote electronically creates voter suppression by cost.
• International cloud platforms can run secure elections at a fraction of this cost, sometimes free for associations.

b) Secrecy & Conflict of Interest

• Secretly procuring a vendor without:
  • stakeholder approval
  • public demo
  • independent audit
• Opposing the association’s own IT team raises serious governance red flags.

c) Vendor Trust & Transparency

• Any e-voting system must be auditable, observable, and verifiable by stakeholders.
• A “black-box” vendor-controlled system is not appropriate for a maiden election.

2. Five Transparent & Low-Cost International E-Voting Platforms

These platforms are cloud-based, widely used, auditable, and far cheaper than custom local vendors.

• ElectionBuddy

Best for associations & alumni groups

Why it works

• End-to-end encrypted voting
• Voter verification via email/SMS
• Real-time monitoring
• Results downloadable for auditing

Cost

• Starts around $0.20–$0.50 per voter
  (≈ ₵3–₵6, not ₵20)

Transparency Advantage

• Admin access can be shared with observers
• Full audit logs available

2. Helios Voting

Best for maximum transparency

Why it works

• Open-source (code publicly available)
• Used by universities and research institutions
• Cryptographic verification (voters can verify their vote)

Cost

• Free (only hosting cost if self-hosted)

Transparency Advantage

• Anyone can inspect how votes are counted
• Impossible to secretly alter results without detection

3. OpaVote

Best balance of simplicity & security

Why it works

• Supports ranked, single-choice & multi-seat elections
• Voter anonymity preserved
• Independent observer access

Cost

• Very affordable for non-profits & associations

Transparency Advantage

• Results reproducible from raw vote data
• Admin actions logged

4 Simply Voting

Used by governments & unions

Why it works

• ISO-certified security processes
• Voter authentication controls
• Observer and audit features

Cost

• Still significantly cheaper than ₵20 per voter

Transparency Advantage

• Independent verification reports available
• Strong compliance documentation

5 Google Forms (with safeguards)

Best ultra-low-cost option

How it can work

• One-response-per-email
• Unique voting links
• Independent results committee

Cost

• Free

Transparency Advantage

• Results visible instantly
• Exportable raw data
• Can be supervised live on Zoom

(While not a full e-voting system, it is still more transparent than a closed vendor system.)

NOTE: There are many more other cloud based platform which are very cost effective which can be considered.

3. About Dominion Technologies — Why Caution Is Necessary

Important: As members of an association, we must rely on verifiable facts, not rumors.

Key Issues That Make Dominion (or any similar local vendor) Unfit Without Due Process

1. No Public Track Record
   • No widely published, independently audited elections run for credible institutions.
2. Closed / Proprietary System
   • If stakeholders cannot:
     • inspect system logic
     • verify vote counting
     • access audit logs
       → trust cannot be established.
3. No Independent Oversight
   • Election vendor must not be selected secretly.
   • Lack of competitive bidding is a governance failure.
4. Name Confusion Risk
   • The name “Dominion” is globally associated with election controversies outside Ghana.
   • Even if unrelated, this alone creates reputational risk for the association.
5. Resistance to Internal IT Oversight
   • Any credible vendor welcomes:
     • internal IT review
     • parallel verification
     • observer access
       Opposition suggests fear of scrutiny, not security.

4. What We Are Proposing Formally

A Transparent Alternative Resolution

1. Adopt Helios or ElectionBuddy immediately
2. Allow association IT team + independent observers
3. Remove ₵20 voting fee
4. Publish:
   • voter register
   • election rules
   • audit report after voting

5. Key Message to Leadership

“A maiden election must build trust, not suspicion.
Transparency is more important than control.
Any system we cannot independently verify should not be used.”

Appendix B – The Legal and Constitutional basis

Appendix B – Legal and Constitutional foundation of this petition

1. LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION

1.1 Supremacy of the HEPSSOSA Constitution

WHEREAS, Article Sixteen of the HEPSSOSA Constitution provides that “This constitution shall be binding on all members of the Association” ;

AND WHEREAS, all organs of the Association, including the National Executive Committee (NEC) and any Electoral Committee, derive their authority strictly from this Constitution;

NOW THEREFORE, any electoral arrangement inconsistent with the Constitution is null, voidable, and liable to challenge.

1.2 Alignment with the 1992 Constitution of Ghana

WHEREAS, Articles 17, 21(1)(e), and 23 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana guarantee:

• equality and non-discrimination,
• freedom of association,
• administrative fairness;

AND WHEREAS, HEPSSOSA, as a voluntary association, is required to reflect these democratic principles in its internal governance;

THEREFORE, electoral processes must be fair, inclusive, reasonable, and transparent.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL BREACHES AND RISKS IDENTIFIED

2.1 Voting Rights of Members in Good Standing

(Article Three(4) and Article Eleven(5))

WHEREAS, Article Three(4) defines a Member in Good Standing as one who has paid annual dues and participates in association activities ;

AND WHEREAS, Article Eleven(5) states unequivocally that “Only members in good standing shall be eligible to vote” ;

THEREFORE, imposing an additional ₵20 voting fee:

• introduces an extra-constitutional qualification to vote,
• unlawfully conditions voting rights beyond dues approved by Congress,
• contradicts the spirit and letter of Article Eleven.

2.2 Financial Obligations Require Congress Approval

(Article Eight(1))

WHEREAS, Article Eight(1) states that dues and levies shall be determined by NEC with prior approval of the entire Association at Congress ;

AND WHEREAS, there is no constitutional provision authorising NEC or an Electoral Committee to unilaterally impose a voting fee;

THEREFORE, the ₵20 electronic voting fee is ultra vires (beyond constitutional authority) unless approved by Congress.

2.3 Transparency and Accountability of NEC

(Article Four(2) and Article Seven(1))

WHEREAS, Article Four(2)(a) establishes the NEC as the governing body of the Association, bound by fiduciary responsibility ;

AND WHEREAS, Article Seven empowers NEC to form committees and draw expertise from general membership, subject to accountability ;

THEREFORE, the secret procurement of an election service provider, without:

• disclosure to members,
• technical review,
• committee oversight,

is inconsistent with constitutional accountability standards.

2.4 Exclusion of Internal Expertise

(Article Four(2)(f) and Article Seven(2)(d))

WHEREAS, Article Four(2)(f) empowers NEC to co-opt members to serve on committees;

AND WHEREAS, Article Seven(2)(d) allows committees to co-opt qualified members to assist their work ;

THEREFORE, the exclusion of the Association’s IT professionals from the e-voting process:

• defeats internal oversight,
• weakens transparency,
• violates the participatory governance model envisioned by the Constitution.

2.5 Secret Ballot and Electoral Integrity

(Article Eleven(6))

WHEREAS, Article Eleven(6) mandates that “Voting shall be by secret ballot” ;

AND WHEREAS, secrecy of the ballot in electronic voting is only credible when:

• systems are auditable,
• processes are observable,
• results are independently verifiable;

THEREFORE, any closed, non-auditable electronic voting system threatens constitutional compliance.

3. DISPUTE PREVENTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS

3.1 Role of the National Advisory Committee

(Article Eleven(8) and Article Six)

WHEREAS, Article Eleven(8) provides that electoral disputes shall be referred to the National Advisory Committee ;

AND WHEREAS, Article Six mandates the Committee to monitor NEC actions and ensure policy compliance ;

THEREFORE, NEC has a constitutional duty to prevent foreseeable disputes by ensuring transparency at the outset.

4. FORMAL CONSTITUTION-BASED PETITIONS

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to:

• Articles Three, Four, Seven, Eight, and Eleven of the HEPSSOSA Constitution,
• the democratic principles of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana,

WE HEREBY PETITION THAT:

1. The ₵20 electronic voting fee be withdrawn unless duly approved by Congress.
2. The current electronic voting arrangement be suspended pending constitutional compliance review.
3. The Association’s IT professionals be formally co-opted into the electoral process.
4. Any e-voting platform adopted must be auditable, transparent, and demonstrable to members.
5. Full electoral procedures and post-election audit reports be published to members.

5. RESERVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES

We hereby reserve our rights, under:

• Article Ten (Emergency Meetings),
• Article Eleven (Election disputes),
• Article Seven (Constitutional & Legal Committee),

to invoke all internal and external remedies available should the EC and NEC opt to proceed with the process in violation of the Constitution.

6. CONCLUSION

This petition is submitted in good faith, grounded strictly in:

• the HEPSSOSA Constitution,
• the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana
• democratic best practices,
• and the long-term unity and legitimacy of the Association.

Appendix C – Constitutional Risk Analysis

APPENDIX C - CONSTITUTIONAL COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS TABLE**

This section will be shared in all the groups