I have been keenly following the conversations across various platforms since Ghana’s Supreme Court delivered its ruling on the delegates system. The decision has generated mixed reactions from political actors, civil society organisations, constitutional experts, and the general public.
Many stakeholders have described the judgement as a landmark decision that could reform and strengthen Ghana’s internal electoral processes by curbing the excessive monetisation of party primaries — a growing canker that threatens the integrity of our democracy. Others, however, have expressed concerns about possible implementation challenges, including legal and operational gaps, political party financing, voter register integrity, and the logistics of conducting nationwide internal elections.
Recognising these concerns, the Supreme Court has granted political parties a one-year transition period to review their constitutions and make the necessary adjustments for the effective implementation of the ruling. This transition period provides an opportunity for careful planning rather than rushed implementation.
For us in the NPP, this conversation is not entirely new. Over the years, our party has deliberately expanded its electoral college, from a few thousand polling station executives to well over 200,000 delegates following successive constitutional reforms. The long-term vision has always been to reach a stage where every registered member in good standing has the opportunity to participate in electing the party’s presidential and parliamentary candidates.
It is equally important to note that the ruling affects only presidential and parliamentary primaries. These are the elections where the influence of money has increasingly overshadowed competence, vision, and leadership, creating a dangerous “highest bidder” culture. Reports of aspirants spending millions of cedis on internal campaigns have become commonplace, raising concerns about vote-buying, patronage politics, and the quality of leadership eventually presented to the Ghanaian electorate.
In many respects, this decision moves Ghana closer to the democratic principle of *One Member, One Vote (OMOV)*, which has been adopted in varying forms by political parties in established democracies such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. While no system is perfect, international experience shows that wider participation enhances legitimacy and reduces the dominance of a small electoral college.
That said, expanding participation alone will not solve every problem. Political parties must invest in credible membership registers, robust verification systems, transparent financing, effective electoral dispute mechanisms, and voter education. Without these safeguards, the challenges associated with the delegates system could simply be replicated on a larger scale.
Indeed, the growing influence of money in our internal party elections has become a matter of national concern, cutting across political affiliations. Any reform that restores credibility, fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity deserves serious consideration.
As we await the official position of the NPP and the full written judgement of the Supreme Court, I urge all party members to remain calm, avoid speculation, and allow the legal process to run its course. Once the full decision is available, we can engage in a more informed, constructive, and forward-looking discussion on the best way to operationalise this important constitutional milestone.
