AG urges Supreme Court to declare Political Party primaries open to all members in Good Standing

The Attorney General has filed a 19-paged argument at the Supreme Court to support an action to declare that all registered members (in good standing) of a political party are entitled to vote in the party’s primaries.

The argument, filed on Monday, May 25, following a seven-day leave granted by the Apex Court, is to improve the country’s young democracy.

Three distinguished senior statesmen, Prof. Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng, Dr. Nyaho Nyaho Tamakloe, and Dr. Christine Amoako-Nuamah, sued the NPP (1st), NDC (2nd), CPP (3rd), the Electoral Commission (4th), and the AG (5th) as defendants respectively.

Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, for and on behalf of the AG, who is the 5th Defendant, in a 19-paged Statement of Case filed pursuant to the leave granted by the Apex Court on May 19, 2026, prayed the Court to uphold the Plaintiffs’ case in the writ.

The Deputy AG, in the argument in the Statement, prayed the Lordship to adjudge and declare that every registered member in good standing of a political party is entitled to vote in the party’s internal elections.

The arguments were anchored on two cardinal principles – “That political parties are public (not private) interest organisations, and that every registered member in good standing of a political party is entitled to vote in the internal election of that party.”

The Deputy AG concluded on four key points as follows:

First point

First, the proper construction of Article 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution requires that the internal organisation of every political party, particularly in respect of the processes by which the party selects its candidates for the offices of President and Member of Parliament, conform to the democratic principles by which the Constitution itself confers those offices.

The construction is supported by the historical genealogy of the provision from the 1968 Akufo-Addo Commission through the 1979 Constitution to the present text, by the structural architecture of the 1992 Constitution, by the jurisprudence of this Court on universal adult suffrage from Tehn-Addy v Electoral Commission [1996-97] SCGLR 589; Apaloo v Electoral Commission [2001-2002] SCGLR 1; Ahumah-Ocansey v Electoral Commission (2010) JELR 66435; to Occupy Ghana v Attorney-General (2017) JELR 68817 (SC), by the converging comparative experience of constitutional democracies with comparable provisions, and by the considered position of international and regional bodies including the Venice Commission and the Human Rights Committee.

2nd point

Secondly, the minimum constitutional content of Article 55(5), in respect of the selection of presidential and parliamentary candidates, requires a substantial membership selectorate, substantially equal voting power, secret ballot, fair and transparent administration, and the absence of material disenfranchisement of members in good standing.

This minimum gives content to the constitutional command without prescribing any single operational form, and it preserves a range of compliant arrangements within which parties may exercise their organisational discretion.

3rd point

Thirdly, the present arrangements of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants for the selection of their presidential and parliamentary candidates fall below the minimum constitutional content. The arrangements concentrate the decisive electoral choice in narrow bodies constituted predominantly by officeholders, materially disenfranchise the general membership, and do not satisfy the substantive content of Article 55(5).

4th point

Fourthly, the appropriate remedial architecture comprises a declaration of the proper construction of Article 55(5) and the minimum constitutional content; a six-month transitional period in respect of the impugned arrangements of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants; a clarification of the supervisory authority of the Electoral Commission; and the preservation of Parliament’s authority under Article 55(11) to elaborate further specification through amendment of the Political Parties Act, 2000.

Accordingly, we invite this honourable Court to grant the declaratory reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs.

Reliefs

i. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of the Preamble and Articles 1(1) and (2), 17, 33(5), 35(6)(d), 42 and 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution the election of a political party’s presidential and parliamentary candidate(s) constitutes a core element of the party’s internal organisation within the meaning of Article 55(5) of the Constitution.

ii. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of the Preamble and Articles 1(1) and (2), 17, 33(5), 35(6)(d), 42 and 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution, the internal organisation of a political party must be structured in a manner that ensures equal political participation and equal voting rights of its members in the selection of the party’s presidential and parliamentary candidate(s).

iii. A declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of the Preamble and Articles 1, 17, 33(5), 35(6)(d), 42, 55(2), 55(5), 63 and 93 of the 1992 Constitution, democratic principles governing the internal organisation of political parties require political equality, meaningful and broad participation of members in decision-making, accountability of leadership to the membership, and substantially equal and direct voting rights for members in good standing in the election of the party’s presidential and parliamentary candidates.

iv. A declaration that the delegate-based Electoral College system established under Article 13 of the Constitution of the 1st Defendant for the election of its presidential candidate, which confines or restricts voting to specified executives, office holders and delegates to the exclusion or material disenfranchisement of members in good standing of the party, contravenes the Preamble and Articles 1, 17, 33(5), 35(6)(d), 42 and 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect.

v. A declaration that the Extraordinary Constituency Delegates Conference system established under Article 7 of the Constitution of the 1st Defendant for the selection or election of its parliamentary candidates, which confines voting to specified constituency executives, coordinators, polling station officers, elders, patrons and other delegates to the exclusion or material disenfranchisement of members in good standing of the party, contravenes the Preamble and Articles 1, 17, 33(5), 35(6)(d), 42 and 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect.

vi. A declaration that the Electoral College system established under Articles 43 and 44 of the Constitution of the 2nd Defendant for the election of its presidential and parliamentary candidate, which confines or restricts voting to specified executives, office holders and delegates to the exclusion or material disenfranchisement of members in good standing of the party, contravenes the Preamble and Articles 1, 33(5), 17, 35(6)(d), 42 and 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect.

vii. A declaration that the Constituency Branch Party Conference system and the National Delegates Congress system established under Articles 53, 96 and 77 of the Constitution of the 3rd Defendant for the election of its presidential and parliamentary candidate(s), which confines voting to specified executives, elders, officers and delegates to the exclusion or material disenfranchisement of members in good standing of the party, contravenes the Preamble and Articles 1, 17, 33(5), 35(6)(d), 42 and 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect.

viii. A consequential order striking down and declaring unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect all provisions of the constitutions, rules, regulations or electoral arrangements of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, to the extent that they restrict or confine the election of their presidential and parliamentary candidates to limited Electoral Colleges, delegate bodies or similar structures, or otherwise exclude or materially disenfranchise members in good standing of the parties from voting in elections for their presidential candidates.

ix. An order directing the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants to amend their respective constitutions, rules and electoral arrangements to adopt procedures for the election of their presidential candidates or flagbearers that conform to the democratic principles required under Article 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution and ensure the equal, direct and meaningful participation of members in good standing in such elections.

x. An order directed at the 4th Defendant, in the exercise of its supervisory and regulatory mandate under the Constitution and Act 574, to ensure and enforce the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendant’s compliance with the Preamble Article 55(5) of the Constitution and Section 9(a) of Act 574 in respect of their internal elections.

xi. Such further or consequential orders as this Honourable Court may deem just.

Facts of case

1. According to Article 55 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, every citizen has the right to form or join a political party for the purpose of participating in shaping the political will of the people and influencing the governance of the State. Political parties are thereby recognised not as private associations, but as constitutionally significant institutions through which democratic representation and governmental authority are organised.
2. Article 55 further regulates the formation, operation and organisation of political parties and, in particular, provides in clause (5) that the internal organisation of every political party shall conform to democratic principles. The language of this provision is mandatory and admits of no exception. Compliance with democratic principles is therefore a constitutional obligation binding on every registered political party.
3. Pursuant to Article 55(11) of the Constitution, Parliament enacted the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574) to regulate the registration, organisation, conduct and supervision of political parties, and to give effect to the constitutional requirements governing their operations. The Act establishes a statutory framework for the recognition and regulation of political parties and places them under the oversight of the Electoral Commission.
4. In particular, section 9(a) of the Political Parties Act reiterates the constitutional requirement that the internal organisation of political parties shall conform to democratic principles. The statutory scheme therefore reinforces the constitutional command that parties operate in a manner consistent with democratic participation, equality and accountability.
5. The Electoral Commission – the 4th Defendant – is, by Article 45 of the Constitution, 1992 and the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574), the constitutional and statutory regulator of political parties. It is mandated to register political parties and is expressly prohibited from registering any party whose internal organisation does not conform to democratic principles. The Commission is therefore under a continuing legal duty to ensure that the constitutions, structures and internal electoral processes of political parties comply with Article 55(5) of the Constitution, 1992. The Commission further supervises internal party elections and possesses investigative and enforcement powers to secure compliance. The Commission is accordingly a necessary party to these proceedings, as the reliefs sought directly implicate its supervisory and compliance obligations.
6. In furtherance of its constitutional and statutory mandate to register and regulate political parties, the Electoral Commission is required by law, as a condition precedent to registration, to examine and vet the constitution, rules and internal organisational arrangements of every political party to ensure that such arrangements conform to democratic principles and are not inconsistent with the Constitution. In particular, section 9(a) of the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574) prohibits the Commission from registering a political party unless its internal organisation conforms with democratic principles.
7. Accordingly, prior to the registration of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants as political parties, the Electoral Commission reviewed and approved their respective constitutions and organisational structures for purposes of determining compliance with article 55(5) of the Constitution and the requirements of Act 574. The said Defendants continue to operate as registered political parties under the supervision and regulatory oversight of the Commission.
8. The Plaintiffs further state that, whether or not the Electoral Commission has adequately discharged its supervisory and vetting responsibilities, the constitutional obligation imposed by article 55(5) rests directly and independently upon every political party. The duty to ensure that the internal organisation of a political party conforms to democratic principles is not contingent upon prior approval, certification, or enforcement by the Electoral Commission.
9. Political parties are themselves enjoined by the Constitution to organise their structures, processes and internal elections in a manner consistent with democratic principles. That obligation is self- executing and continuous, and cannot be avoided or excused by reliance on administrative registration or regulatory oversight.
10. Accordingly, the internal structures and candidate selection processes of registered political parties are matters of constitutional and statutory compliance and are not immune from constitutional challenge where they fall short of the democratic standards mandated by the Constitution.
11. The Plaintiffs state that, having carefully reviewed the constitutions, rules and internal organisational arrangements of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, they contend that in material and significant respects the said parties’ systems for the selection of their leadership and candidates fall short of the democratic principles mandated by article 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution and are therefore inconsistent with their constitutional obligations, and accordingly bring this action to seek the interpretation and enforcement of the said provision and related constitutional guarantees so as to assess and determine the compliance of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants with those obligations and, further or in the alternative, to inquire into whether the 4th Defendant has failed, refused or neglected to properly discharge its statutory and constitutional duty to vet, supervise and ensure such compliance.

Source: Starrfm.com.gh