By Daniel Bampoe
The Eastern Regional Chairman of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mark Oliver Kevor, has criticised the recent Supreme Court ruling declaring the delegate system of political parties unconstitutional, arguing that the judgment raises broader constitutional questions about how democratic institutions in Ghana function.
In a strongly worded opinion, Kevor questioned what he described as the logical implications of the ruling, suggesting that if a relatively small group of delegates cannot constitutionally elect presidential and parliamentary candidates on behalf of political parties, then similar concerns could be raised about other state institutions that make decisions affecting the entire co-follows come in the wake of the Supreme Court, which delivered landmark decision that the delegate system used by political parties to elect their presidential and parliamentary candidates is inconsistent with the democratic principles enshrined in the 1992 Constitution.
According to Kevor, the decision appears to overlook the manner in which many constitutional institutions operate, where a limited number of elected or appointed individuals make decisions that have nationwide consequences.
He pointed out that Parliament’s 276 Members of Parliament pass national budgets and enact laws binding on the more than 34 million citizens, while a relatively small Cabinet approves major government policies and borrowing arrangements on behalf of the country.
Kevor further observed that five justices of the Supreme Court constituted the majority that delivered the judgment affecting all political parties and voters across the nation.
“If small electoral colleges are undemocratic, Parliament and the judiciary itself may perhaps be a scandal,” he argued.
Drawing from the NDC’s own internal electoral history, the regional chairman maintained that the party had previously experimented with a universal voting system before abandoning it because of challenges associated with maintaining a credible membership register.
According to him, the NDC voluntarily abolished its delegate system in 2015, allowing all registered party members to participate in its presidential primary.
He said more than 1.28 million members voted during that exercise, describing it as one of the broadest internal democratic processes undertaken by a political party in Ghana.
However, he noted that the arrangement proved difficult to sustain.
Kevor recalled that in October 2017, the NDC acknowledged concerns over the credibility of its biometric membership register, alleging that the register had been infiltrated by non-members, making it difficult for the party to accurately determine who genuinely belonged to the organisation.
According to him, those challenges compelled the NDC to revert to the delegate system ahead of its subsequent internal elections in 2019.
He argued that expanding voting rights without first establishing a credible and verifiable membership register does not necessarily strengthen democracy.
Instead, he contended that democratic participation must be supported by an accurate register capable of identifying legitimate party members.
The Eastern Regional Chairman also argued that Article 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution requires political parties to operate according to democratic principles but does not prescribe any specific electoral model that parties must adopt for selecting their leaders or parliamentary candidates.
For that reason, he expressed respectful disagreement with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the constitutional provision.
“I disagree with the Supreme Court on this one, respectfully, and from inside my own house. The Constitution set a standard, not a method. This ruling may not stand the test of time. And please, I am not a lawyer,” he wrote.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has sparked intense political and legal debate, with supporters describing it as a significant step towards broadening internal party democracy, while critics argue that political parties should retain the constitutional autonomy to determine their own internal electoral systems, provided they adhere to democratic principles.
