By Ransford Brobbey, a Political Scientist and Associate with IMANI Centre for Policy and Education
The Supreme Court of Ghana’s landmark 5-2 ruling on July 29, 2026, declaring the traditional delegate-based electoral college system unconstitutional, marks a seismic shift in the nation’s political jurisprudence.
By mandating that all registered political party members be permitted to vote in internal elections—specifically presidential and parliamentary primaries—the apex court has fundamentally altered the operational mechanics of the Fourth Republic.
While championed by proponents of direct democracy, the ruling exposes profound contradictions between representative democratic theory, statutory realities under the Political Parties Act (Act 574), and the administrative capacities of both political parties and the Electoral Commission.
The Doctrine of Representative Democracy vs. Direct Mandate
The majority opinion, led by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, anchored its reasoning in Article 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution, which mandates that the internal organization of political parties must “conform to democratic principles.”
The Court concluded that restricting voting rights to a narrow class of delegates is inherently exclusionary. However, this interpretation presents a critical jurisprudential paradox.
Ghana’s entire constitutional framework is predicated on representative democracy. The citizenry delegates its legislative authority to 275 Members of Parliament; local governance relies on elected District Assembly members enacting bylaws.
Similarly, within the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), polling station executives are not unelected oligarchs—they are recognized, working members elected at the ward level by the grassroots.
Delegating the secondary task of selecting parliamentary and presidential candidates to these elected representatives is consistent with established democratic norms. By conflating “democratic principles” exclusively with direct, universal suffrage, the Court risks delegitimizing the very concept of representative delegation that underpins national governance.
The Administrative Vacuum: The Absence of a Centralized Partisan Registry
The most immediate and severe practical challenge arising from the Court’s mandate is the absence of a centralized, statutory database for political party affiliation in Ghana. Unlike the national biometric voter register managed by the Electoral Commission (EC), partisan membership is managed internally by the parties themselves.
The shift to universal internal voting without a centralized registry creates a fertile environment for electoral sabotage. Under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of association, there is currently no legal mechanism preventing a citizen from holding membership cards for multiple political parties.
Without a unified system to cross-reference affiliations, the system is highly vulnerable to “party raiding”—a scenario where operatives of Party A mobilize to vote in Party B’s open primary, intentionally nominating a weaker candidate to secure a strategic advantage in the general election.
Furthermore, while double voting in a national election is a criminal offense under the Representation of the People Law (PNDCL 284), participating in multiple internal party primaries remains a matter of internal party discipline, not a state crime. This regulatory vacuum limits the EC’s ability to enforce the integrity of these new mass primaries.
The Statutory Mismatch: Act 574 and Judicial Overreach
The ruling also highlights a significant tension regarding the separation of powers. The Supreme Court has directed political parties to amend their constitutions within a one-year grace period. However, the regulatory framework governing these entities—the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574)—remains untouched by the judiciary, as only Parliament can amend statutes.
Sections 8 and 9 of Act 574 grant registered parties the autonomy to design their internal rules and governance structures, provided they maintain a national character and adhere to broad democratic principles.
The Act does not explicitly mandate universal suffrage nor prohibit electoral colleges. By compelling parties to adopt a specific electoral model without a corresponding legislative amendment to Act 574, the Court has created a legal gray area. The written statute permits constitutional autonomy for parties, while the judicial mandate severely constrains it.
The Monetization Paradox
A primary motivation for dismantling the delegate system was to curb the pervasive monetization of internal elections, where candidates could effectively “buy” the loyalty of a small, localized electoral college.
However, expanding the franchise to millions of grassroots members will likely not eliminate vote-buying; it will simply scale it. The financial burden of campaigning will transition from targeted disbursements to delegates toward mass patronage and extensive logistical spending.
Consequently, wealthier candidates with substantial financial backing will retain, and perhaps expand, their structural advantages over less-funded contenders. The Supreme Court’s verdict on July 29, 2026, is a bold intervention aimed at democratizing political parties from the ground up.
Yet, by bypassing the established mechanics of representative delegation and ignoring the glaring lack of a centralized partisan registry, the ruling introduces severe administrative and legal vulnerabilities.
Without swift legislative action from Parliament to amend Act 574 and empower the Electoral Commission to manage a unified partisan database, this judicial mandate for direct democracy may inadvertently breed chaos and deeper financial inequity within Ghana’s internal political processes.
READ ALSO: WAFCON 2026: Black Queens Suffer Narrow Defeat to Cameroon
