The Supreme Court’s decision declaring unconstitutional the delegate system used by political parties to select presidential candidates is a welcome development for Ghana’s democracy.
By affirming the right of all registered party members to participate directly in choosing their presidential candidate, the court has strengthened a key pillar of constitutional democracy.
The ruling goes beyond the mechanics of party primaries. It raises a fundamental question about what political party membership should mean in a democracy.
If citizens join a political party, pay dues, campaign for it and work to secure its electoral victory, why should they be excluded from deciding who leads the party into a presidential election?
The Supreme Court has done more than strike down a method of choosing political candidates; it has reaffirmed a fundamental principle of democracy: Political power must be rooted in the participation of the people.
By declaring the delegate-based Electoral College system unconstitutional and directing political parties to allow members in good standing to participate in selecting their candidates, the court has strengthened political participation and confronted one of the troubling features of Ghanaian politics: the growing influence of money in internal party elections.
The delegate system created a relatively small electoral marketplace.
In Ghana’s major political parties, presidential aspirants have traditionally had to win the support of party membership.
That structure has generated concerns about inducements and the cost of securing delegates’ votes.
The Supreme Court itself identified corruption and inducement as among the concerns associated with the system.
The problem is particularly visible during parliamentary primaries.
Aspirants routinely have to mobilise resources for meetings, transportation, feeding and other campaign-related activities.
Once the electorate is narrowed to a manageable number of delegates, the temptation is strong for political competition to become increasingly transactional.
This creates an uncomfortable question: does the candidate win because party members believe in his or her leadership or because the candidate can afford to satisfy the expectations of the electorate?
Ghana should not allow internal party democracy to degenerate into an auction in which the person with the deepest pockets enjoys the greatest advantage.Join Diaspora Networks
Internal Audit Leadership Summit 4th Edition • Ghana • 2026 23rd–25th September, 2026 AUDIT REIMAGINED From Compliance To Consequence Bold Leadership. Foresight. Strategic Impact. CLICK TO REGISTER NOW!
There is also a broader consequence.
A politician who spends heavily to secure a party nomination may feel compelled, once elected, to recover those costs.
That can feed the very culture of patronage and corruption which Ghanaians increasingly complain about.
The Supreme Court’s decision offers an opportunity to change that culture.
Consider the ordinary party member in a branch in Kumasi, Tamale or Ho.
Under the old arrangement, that member could spend years working for the party without having a direct vote in choosing its presidential candidate.
That is difficult to reconcile with the democratic values that political parties promote during national elections.
The new approach puts the grassroots closer to the centre of political decision-making.
An aspirant seeking the presidential nomination of the NPP, the NDC or another registered party will have to speak to a far broader constituency.
That could change the substance of political campaigns.
Candidates will have greater incentive to explain their policies, defend their records and present a compelling vision for Ghana rather than concentrating their efforts on a relatively small group of delegates.
The principle is straightforward: persuasion should matter more than purchasing influence.
One member, one vote is not enough. The ruling, however, should not be treated as a magic bullet against monetisation.
Opening primaries to the wider membership will create logistical and financial challenges.
Candidates will still spend money campaigning and there will still be attempts to influence voters with material benefits.
Political parties must, therefore, complement the court’s decision with stronger safeguards: credible membership registers, transparent eligibility rules, disclosure of campaign financing, clear spending limits and meaningful sanctions for vote buying and inducement.
Otherwise Ghana could simply move from buying the support of delegates to attempting to buy the support of ordinary members on a much larger scale.Join Diaspora Networks
The reform must, therefore, be accompanied by a change in political culture.
Ghana has earned a reputation for democratic stability in West Africa, but democratic stability should not mean merely holding peaceful national elections.
Democracy must also operate within the institutions through which the citizens organise and compete for political power.
Political parties are central to that process.
Their internal democracy matters because the person selected to lead a party may eventually become President or Member of Parliament.
That is why the Supreme Court’s decision should be welcomed as a significa
