Three respected elder statespersons have taken the dominant political parties to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a landmark constitutional battle over how presidential and parliamentary candidates are selected within political parties.

In a writ filed on January 23, 2026, former Minister of Environment, Science and Technology Prof. Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng, veteran political activist and medical practitioner Dr. Nyaho Nyaho-Tamakloe, and former Minister of State Dr. Christine Amoako-Nuamah are challenging the legality of the delegate-based electoral systems used by the New Patriotic Party (NPP), the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the Convention People’s Party (CPP).

The plaintiffs contend that the long-standing practice of restricting internal party elections to selected delegates undermines democratic participation and violates key provisions of the 1992 Constitution.

They argue that while Ghana operates a universal adult suffrage system at the national level, political parties—through their internal rules—have created what they describe as an “oligarchic” structure that sidelines the majority of party members.

Dispute

Since the inception of the Fourth Republic, the major political parties have relied on electoral colleges made up of party executives, constituency representatives and other selected delegates to elect flagbearers and, in some cases, parliamentary candidates.

Party leaders have historically defended this approach as a practical way of managing large memberships and controlling costs.

However, critics have for years raised concerns that the system concentrates power in the hands of a few, fuels monetisation of internal elections, and weakens accountability.

Calls For Broader Participation, including universal membership voting, have periodically surfaced within party reform debates but have largely failed to gain traction.

The current lawsuit escalates these internal debates into a constitutional question, asking the Supreme Court to determine whether such delegate-based systems are compatible with the democratic order.

Claims Of Disenfranchisement

According to the plaintiffs, the NPP, NDC and CPP have effectively replaced mass participation with what they term a “restricted electoral college,” allowing only a small fraction of party members to determine who contests for national leadership positions.

In their statement of case, they argue that hundreds of thousands of ordinary party members in good standing are excluded from critical decision-making, creating a privileged class of voters within parties. This, they say, offends the spirit and letter of the Constitution, particularly provisions relating to equality, political participation and democratic governance.

They cite the Preamble and Articles 1, 17, 33(5), 35(6)(d), 42 and 55(5) of the Constitution, insisting that political parties, as vehicles for accessing state power, must organise themselves along democratic lines that reflect universal participation and political equality.

Party Constitutions Under Scrutiny

The suit specifically challenges provisions in the constitutions of the three parties. For the NPP, the focus is on Article 13, which confines the election of the party’s presidential candidate to an electoral college.

In the case of the NDC, Articles 43 and 44 are cited for entrenching a delegate system rather than universal member voting. The CPP’s Articles 53, 77 and 96, which provide for a National Delegates Congress model, are also under attack.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare these provisions unconstitutional and to order the parties to amend their constitutions to allow for equal, direct voting by all registered members in internal elections.

Electoral Commission and Attorney-General Joined

Beyond the political parties, the Attorney-General and the Electoral Commission (EC) have been named as defendants.

The plaintiffs accuse the EC of failing to discharge its statutory duty under Article 55(5) of the Constitution and Section 9(a) of the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574), which require that the internal organisation of political parties conform to democratic principles.

They argue that the EC has “failed, refused or neglected” to rigorously vet party constitutions to ensure compliance with these requirements, thereby allowing undemocratic practices to persist.

Reliefs Sought From The Supreme Court

Among the key reliefs sought are declarations striking down delegate-based systems used by the NPP, NDC and CPP, orders compelling the parties to revise their constitutions to guarantee equal and direct voting rights for all members, and directives requiring the EC to strictly enforce democratic standards before approving or maintaining party registration.

The plaintiffs are also seeking a broad declaration affirming the principle of political equality within parties, ensuring that no member’s voting power is elevated above another’s by virtue of office or status.

Why The Case Is Significant

The timing of the lawsuit is politically sensitive, coming as parties prepare for upcoming election cycles. The plaintiffs argue that internal party elections serve as the real gatekeepers to state power, determining who eventually appears on the ballot for national elections.

In their view, allowing exclusionary practices at this critical stage undermines the democratic chain between citizens and the state. They maintain that it is inconsistent to insist on universal suffrage in national elections while tolerating restricted participation in the internal processes that produce candidates for those elections.