The legal issue before the Supreme Court of Ghana was whether the long‑established delegate‑based method of choosing presidential and parliamentary nominees infringed the constitutional guarantee that every citizen has a say in the political process. Under Article 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution, the right to “participate in the political life of the state” is universal. The Court held that the delegate system effectively created a privileged class of party insiders, thereby violating this universal participation clause.
Governing Principles
The Court’s reasoning rested on two constitutional principles:
1. Equality in political participation – The right to influence the selection of public representatives is a fundamental democratic value, and any mechanism that limits this right to a subset of members is inconsistent with Article 55(5). Article 55(5). 2. Internal autonomy of parties – While political parties enjoy organizational autonomy, that autonomy cannot be exercised in a way that contravenes constitutional mandates. The Court clarified that internal governance structures must be compatible with, not contrary to, constitutional guarantees.
Strength of the Counterargument
Opponents of the ruling could argue that the delegate system serves a legitimate purpose: it promotes efficiency and protects parties from the logistical chaos of nationwide primaries. They might cite the principle of party self‑regulation as a valid counterweight to constitutional constraints. However, the Court rejected this argument by emphasizing that the constitutional right to participate transcends practical considerations; a system that deliberately restricts participation cannot be justified merely by administrative convenience.
Practical Implications
The judgment imposes a twelve‑month transition period during which the New Patriotic Party, the National Democratic Congress, the Convention People’s Party, and all other major parties must redesign their primary procedures. The Electoral Commission has been tasked with monitoring compliance, ensuring that primary elections are conducted directly by the full membership rather than an electoral college. Parties will need to:
Establish clear rules on eligibility – Define who counts as a bona fide party member for the purpose of voting. Implement a secure registration system – Allow all members to confirm their participation and prevent fraud. Create dispute‑resolution mechanisms – Provide transparent processes for handling complaints about the primary.
The shift also raises questions about resource allocation, as smaller parties may struggle to organize nationwide primaries. The Court’s decision effectively widens the reach of constitutional protections to the internal mechanics of party organization.
Realistic Reform Pathways
A pragmatic approach for parties involves adopting a tiered system of primaries: a preliminary regional vote that funnels into a national one‑member‑one‑vote contest. This would maintain administrative feasibility while satisfying constitutional requirements. The Electoral Commission could pilot this model, offering guidance and oversight. Parties might also leverage technology to streamline voting and verification processes, ensuring that all members can participate regardless of geography.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s ruling reasserts the primacy of universal political participation and forces a recalibration of how parties select their leaders. While the transition will demand significant organizational change, it also presents an opportunity to deepen democratic engagement at the grassroots level.
Authorities and sources
Article 55(5) Supreme Court of Ghana, July 29, 2026 Electoral Commission of Ghana