The opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) has urged Ghanaians to vote 'No' in rejection of a proposal to make District Assembly Elections partisan.

The party is garnering the support of majority of Ghanaians in the December 17 referendum, which will determine the 'for' or 'against'  the move to amendment the Constitution to allow partisan participation into Ghana’s local governance system.

At a press conference in Accra on Tuesday, National Chairman of the NDC, Samuel Ofosu Ampofo, said the NDC  the country risks being polarized if electorate voted YES.

"It is our well-considered view, and indeed that of well-meaning Ghanaians, that the needless NDC￾NPP polarization at the national level should not be extended into the District Assemblies and Unit
Committees, which is what will happen if we vote to make the local government system partisan," he said, adding that "it would politicise the local governance system against the entrenched clause in Article 55(3) of the 1992 Constitution".

“The local government system should remain non-partisan and that individuals contest the District Assembly and Unit Committee elections on their own merit,” the NDC Chairman stressed.

He, however, said the party supported the elections of Municipal and District Chief Executives as proposed by the Akufo-Addo government.

“We of the NDC believe that all our towns and villages should have one communal Labour Day and one market and we can only achieve this by voting ‘NO’,” Mr Ofosu Ampofo stated.

The NDC Chairman stressed that Ghana was not ready for the introduction of fully blown partisan politics at the local government level, adding that a ‘Yes’ vote would have dire consequences including; increase in corruption.

Read full statement below

NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS (NDC) PRESS CONFERENCE NDC’s POSITION ON THE REFERENDUM TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEM PARTISAN AND CONSEQUENTIAL MATTERS

Ladies and gentlemen,
At the meeting held last Thursday, the NEC of the NDC affirmed our long held position that
MMDCEs should be elected. We however took the view that the local government system should
remain non-partisan and that individuals contest the District Assembly and Unit Committee elections
on their own merit. We therefore decided to campaign for a NO vote at the referendum and to urge
all Ghanaians to vote NO at the referendum.
It is our well-considered view, and indeed that of well-meaning Ghanaians, that the needless NDC￾NPP polarization at the national level should not be extended into the District Assemblies and Unit
Committees, which is what will happen if we vote to make the local government system partisan.
The consequence of exporting this polarization into the District Assemblies is that very soon in our
villages, there will be “NDC Communal Labour day” and “NPP Communal Labour day”. There will
also be “NDC market” and “NPP market” And so on and so forth. We of the NDC believe that all
our towns and villages should have one communal Labour Day, and one market and we can only
achieve this by voting NO. Ladies and gentlemen,
If you will recall, last week at Akatsi in the Volta Region, President Akufo-Addo stated that he was
committed to sustaining former President Rawlings’ decentralization legacy. That legacy is based on
the non-partisan local government system. It is therefore imperative that we vote NO at the
referendum in order to give effect to President Akufo-Addo’s commitment.
(Let me take this paragraph again) THE REFERENDUM
Ladies and gentlemen,
Article 55 (3) of the Constitution states as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this article, a
political party is free to participate in shaping the political will of the people, to disseminate
information or political ideas, social and economic programmes of a national character and sponsor
candidates for elections to any public office other than to District Assemblies or other local
government unit”.
The referendum has become necessary because Article 55 is an entrenched provision of the
Constitution and therefore can only be amended through a referendum. But in amending Article 55,
there would be many consequential matters and pitfalls which government may not have considered.

Indeed, that is why the proposed bill should have been subjected to intense public discussion as is
required for holding referenda on any provision of the Constitution. Without the needed clarity,
confusion would arise out of the referendum. This is the problem Great Britain has had to grapple
with since the Brexit referendum. PITFALLS OF THE REFERENDUM BILL
Ladies and gentlemen,
The first pitfall relating to making the local government system partisan has to do with the bill on
which the referendum is to be held which is titled the ‘Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2018’. It was
signed by the Attorney-General, Ms. Gloria Afua Akuffo, on 26th September, 2018 and given Gazette
notification on 12th November 2018. It states as follows:
“Article 55 of the Constitution amended
Article 55 of the Constitution is amended by the repeal of clause (3) and the insertion of the
following:
“(3) Subject to the provisions of this article, a political party may participate in shaping the
political will of the people, to disseminate information on political ideas, social and economic
programmes of a national character and sponsor candidates for elections to any public office”.
A copy of the Amendment Bill will be distributed to all members of the media here present.. It must
be noted that the language in the original Article 55 (3) that “a political party --- isfree to disseminate
information on --- political ideas, social and economic programmes of a national character ---”
We wish to point out that this was couched in that way because the local government system was
non-partisan and political parties were prohibited from sponsoring candidates for elections at the
district and sub-district (local) levels. So by repeating it in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2018,
it means that even though under the bill, political parties may sponsor candidates for election to any
public office, including the District Assemblies and Unit Committees “they cannot disseminate political ideas, social and economic programmes of a local character” (that is at the district and
unit levels). In effect, political parties cannot campaign in the district level elections which are
intended to deal with local level socio-political issues.
Simply put, voting YES, would mean that political parties can sponsor candidates to both District
Assembly and Unit Committee elections but the same political parties cannot campaign in the
districts and the units for those elections. This flies in the face of logic.

Ladies and gentlemen,
The second pitfall relates to Article 248 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. That Article states as follows:
“(1) A candidate seeking election to a District Assembly or any lower local government unit shall
present himself to the electorate as an individual, and shall not use any symbol associated with any
political party.
(2) A political party shall not endorse, sponsor, offer a platform to or in any way campaign for or
against a candidate seeking election to a District Assembly or any lower local government unit”.
If Article 248 is not amended or repealed, it will mean that even if the referendum succeeds in
amending Article 55 (3) to allow political parties to sponsor candidates for District Assembly and
Unit Committee elections, the candidates cannot use the symbols of those political parties and indeed
the political parties cannot endorse, sponsor, offer a platform to or campaign for those candidates.
That will be an unpardonable contradiction in our Constitution. Ladies and gentlemen,
The third pitfall relates to the need for a repeal of Article 242(d) of the Constitution. This is the
article that requiresthe President to appoint 30 per cent of the membership of the District Assemblies.
That requirement was necessary when the District Assembly system was non-partisan. However, if
as the bill seeks to do, the President’s party will be sponsoring candidates to contest the District
Assembly elections, it will not be fair or just to also allow that President to appoint 30 per cent of
the membership which will only go to swell up the overall number of his party members in the
District Assembly.
Indeed, outside the proposed referendum, it has been our view that this provision should be amended
so that government will cede the 30 per cent appointments as it presently stands to the chiefs and
traditional authorities as was the case under the Second and Third Republican Constitutions. Ladies and gentlemen,

The second pitfall relates to Article 248 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. That Article states as follows:
“(1) A candidate seeking election to a District Assembly or any lower local government unit shall
present himself to the electorate as an individual, and shall not use any symbol associated with any
political party.
(2) A political party shall not endorse, sponsor, offer a platform to or in any way campaign for or
against a candidate seeking election to a District Assembly or any lower local government unit”.
If Article 248 is not amended or repealed, it will mean that even if the referendum succeeds in
amending Article 55 (3) to allow political parties to sponsor candidates for District Assembly and
Unit Committee elections, the candidates cannot use the symbols of those political parties and indeed
the political parties cannot endorse, sponsor, offer a platform to or campaign for those candidates.
That will be an unpardonable contradiction in our Constitution.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The third pitfall relates to the need for a repeal of Article 242(d) of the Constitution. This is the
article that requiresthe President to appoint 30 per cent of the membership of the District Assemblies.
That requirement was necessary when the District Assembly system was non-partisan. However, if
as the bill seeks to do, the President’s party will be sponsoring candidates to contest the District
Assembly elections, it will not be fair or just to also allow that President to appoint 30 per cent of
the membership which will only go to swell up the overall number of his party members in the
District Assembly.

Indeed, outside the proposed referendum, it has been our view that this provision should be amended
so that government will cede the 30 per cent appointments as it presently stands to the chiefs and
traditional authorities as was the case under the Second and Third Republican Constitutions.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The fourth pitfall is in respect of Regulation 2 (1) (c) of the Local Government (Sub-Metropolitan
District Councils) (Establishment, Composition and Functions) Instrument, 2015, L. I. 2223. This
provides as members of the Sub-Metropolitan District Councils (SMDCs) “not more than five adult
residents the majority of whom are to be women in the sub-metropolitan district appointed by the
Regional Minister in consultation with the traditional authorities and other interest groups in the
sub-metropolitan district”.

This L.I. will also have to be amended to prevent the Regional Minister who is the appointee
of the President from packing the SMDC with party members. As we have proposed for the
Assemblies, this appointment may also be ceded to the chiefs and traditional authorities.
Ladies and gentlemen, I now proceed to pitfall number five.
Currently, the cost of the non-partisan district level elections, that is the District Assembly and Unit
Committee elections, including the cost of the campaigns of the candidates through the mounting of
the platform system, is borne by the state. If the elections are made partisan and political parties are
to sponsor candidates for the District Assembly and Unit Committee elections, will the cost of those
elections and the cost of the campaigns of the candidates continue to be borne by the state or the cost
will be passed on to the political parties? Are the political parties in a position to bear that cost?
The sixth pitfall is that once the district level elections become partisan political parties may be
compelled to hold party primaries at both the electoral area and unit levels in order to select
candidates for the District Assembly and Unit Committee elections. Are the political parties ready,
willing and able to bear those costs? Are we prepared to transfer the canker of monetization in our
national politics onto the local government system?
Ladies and gentlemen,
The seventh pitfall relates to general difficulties that are likely to arise in the post-elected District
Assembly and Unit Committee local government architecture, in respect of the following:


  •  How will District Assemblies which are considered “hostile” to the Central Government (in the
    sense that the majority of the Assembly members do not belong to the party in power at the
    Central Government level) be handled and are not discriminated against by the Central
    Government when it comes to the allocation of resources, the provision of services and the siting
    of projects;

  • Has government considered the likelihood of heightened tensions between the Central
    Government and “hostile” District Assemblies and especially between “hostile” District Chief
    Executives (in the sense of elected District Chief Executives who do not belong to the President’s
    party) and the President.?

  • How will a regional minister appointed by the president run the affairs of the region which may
    be dominated by “hostile district assemblies” with “ hostile district chief executives” to realize a
    harmonious relationship within the region.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Media,
Following from the substantial issues we have raised, we wish to conclude as follows;
1. Our support for the election of MMDCEs has not changed. We note however that article 243 (1)
on the election of DCEs is not an entrenched clause in the 1992 constitution and can therefore be
changed by two-thirds majority of all parliamentarians. A referendum is not required to effect the
change allowing for the election of MMDCEs. Government may therefore place a Bill before
Parliament setting out the modalities for the election for consideration. This is the primary interest
of Ghanaians.
2.The Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2018, has many ramifications for the smooth, effective and
harmonious administration of the Metropolitan and District Assemblies. It hasto be thought through
very well. Unfortunately, the bill as it is now is fatally flawed and cannot form the basis for the
referendum to amend Article 55 (3). It must be withdrawn. But if the government insists on making
the Assembles partisan, then a new bill must be drafted, re-gazetted and subjected to serious
scrutiny by Ghanaians, unlike the surreptitious manner it has gone about the current Bill. It will
also mean that the 6-month period required by the Constitution for the Bill to be gazette will
begin to run anew.
3.As part of the process for presenting the referendum question afresh, Government must produce a
blueprint on how the pitfalls arising from the amendment proposal that we have raised are to be
resolved. We insist there must be broader consultation with all the relevant stakeholders.
We acknowledge and are aware of on-going efforts made by some civil society organizations to
forge a bipartisan approach to issues of the referendum including government committing itself to
concrete and verifiable steps pertaining to proposed changes to the constitutional provisions
identified in our statement. The outcome of meetings which have involved the Minority vindicate
the stance we have taken that the referendum should be put on hold. Failing that, we would urge
the electorate to vote NO.

The NDC is of the firm view that the country is already sharply divided along partisan lines. The one
thing which still binds us together as a people is the fact that at the local level, the local government
system is run on a non-partisan basis and therefore is able to rally all of us for development. We
know as a fact that whenever politicians have tried to politicize the local government system it has
never augured well for the community.

Are we prepared to subject this time-tested system to the ravenous nature of partisan politics, which
could further tear us apart without taking into account all the legitimate concerns we have raised so
far?
Ladies and gentlemen,
The issues we have brought up go to the very heart of the legitimacy of the scheduled referendum. 
We have done our duty to country by bringing to the fore, the inherent flaws in even the way the Bill
on which the referendum question is premised has been put.
FINALLY, LET ME REITERATE THE POSITION OF THE NDC THAT THE ELECTION OF
MMDCEs IS VIABLE AND DOABLE. THE RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IS
NOT AN ENTRENCHED CLAUSE SO PARLIAMENT CAN AMEND IT WITH TWO THIRDS
MAJORITY WITHOUT NECESSARILY TURNING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SYSYEM
INTO A HOTBED OF PARTISAN CONFUSION.
We thank you very much for your attention