Ghana is at a pivotal moment in its democratic journey.
In January 2026, three eminent elder statespersons Prof. Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng, Dr. Nyaho-Tamakloe and Dr. Christine Amoako Nuamah, brought a case to the Supreme Court to strike down the electoral systems adopted by Ghana’s political parties which are based on delegates. This case has stirred up a basic question: Is Ghana’s problem the delegates-based electoral system, or is it a solution to the political moneyocracy in the country?
What Is Political Moneyocracy in Ghana?
“Political moneyocracy” describes a system where money, not ideas or competence, determines political success.
Political moneyocracy in Ghana can be manifested in different ways, including: the ability of rich candidates to dominate party primaries, thereby leaving out more talented and less rich citizens from the political arena; financial payments to secure votes, undermining the credibility of democratic elections, as they become more of a transaction than a true election; elected officials using their office to recoup the costs of their campaigns, creating cycles of corruption; and public confidence in democracy declining as they become increasingly seen as a transaction rather than a true election.
The Current Delegate System: How It Works
NPP: Article 13 (Presidential Primary)
Article 13(1)(11) of the NPP Constitution establishes an electoral college system for presidential primaries. It restricts presidential voting to designated delegates rather than all party members.
Who gets to vote (per Article 13):
- All former Regional and Constituency Executives
- All National Council of Elders members
- 30 National Council of Patrons members
- Former party card-bearing MPs and Parliamentary Candidates
- All past National Officers
- External Branch Executives
- Former Ministers and Deputy Ministers
- TESCON (students) representatives from tertiary institutions
- Regional and Constituency Council of Elders and Patrons
Current development: In August 2025, the NPP broadened the delegate base for the 2026 presidential primary, adding new categories to enhance inclusiveness.
NDC: Articles 43 and 44 (Delegate-Based Selection)
Articles 43 and 44 of the NDC Constitution give the national executive committee authority over the selection of:
- Presidential candidates
- Parliamentary candidates for the National Democratic Congress
These articles mandate that the party uses a delegate-based system rather than open member voting for candidate selection, concentrating decision-making power in party leadership structures.
CPP: Articles 53, 77, and 96 (National Delegates Congress)
Articles 53, 77, and 96 of the CPP Constitution require the National Delegates Congress system:
- Article 53: Establishes the National Delegates Congress as the party’s highest decision-making body
- Article 77: Mandates delegate-based selection for party leadership
- Article 96: Requires congressional delegate system for constitutional matters and leadership elections
These articles collectively ensure that the CPP operates through a representative delegate system rather than direct member suffrage.
Key Point of Controversy
All three articles create the same fundamental issue: they exclude hundreds of thousands of ordinary party members in good standing from deciding their party’s candidates, reserving this power for a small, concentrated group of delegates which is precisely what the January 2026 Supreme Court challenge seeks to abolish.
The Supreme Court Challenge: Arguments against Delegate Systems
The plaintiffs argue that the delegate system violates the 1992 Constitution’s democratic spirit, specifically:
- Article 1: Sovereignty resides in the people
- Article 17: Equality and freedom from discrimination
- Article 42: Right to vote
- Article 55(5): Political party internal organization must be democratic
The legal team seeks universal member suffrage for internal party elections, forcing parties to adopt the same democratic principles as national elections.
The Counterargument: Can Delegate Systems Be Reformed?
Proponents of a reformed delegate system argue it could address moneyocracy if properly structured:
Potential Advantages of a Reformed System
| Advantage | How It Works |
| Reduced campaign costs | Candidates focus on persuading manageable delegate numbers rather than mass voting |
| Enhanced accountability | Delegates are known entities accountable to constituents who elected them |
| Better candidate evaluation | Politically knowledgeable delegates make more informed decisions than average voters |
| Multiple accountability layers | Larger, diverse delegate pools harder to manipulate than small groups |
Expert Opinion: Open Primaries May Be Better
Dr. John Osae Kwapong has publicly backed an open primary system, arguing it could curb the monetization of politics more effectively than delegate systems. This view suggests that expanding participation rather than restricting it to delegates may be the true solution.
Reality Check: Major Concerns about Delegate Systems
- Concentration of Power: A small, predictable delegate body is easier to influence through financial inducements than mass voting.
- Disenfranchisement: Hundreds of thousands of ordinary party members are excluded from deciding their party’s candidates.
- Elite Capture: Delegate selection processes often favor party elites, perpetuating existing power structures.
- Supreme Court Scrutiny: The Electoral Commission faces accusations of failing to enforce Section 9(a) of the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574), which requires party constitutions to conform to democratic principles.
The Verdict: Is the Delegate System the Panacea?
The evidence suggests the answer is NO at least not in its current form. Here’s why:
Compared to a better alternative, the evidence shows that the current delegate system is not a good one based on the following criteria. This is due to the fact that the current delegate system exhibits very little resistance to money politics as it takes a small number to be bought and a large number is very costly to be manipulated. It has a low democratic legitimacy as it excludes ordinary members, but a high universal member suffrage. In the existing system accountability is minimal, as the delegates are not accountable to the people; whereas under a direct member voting system, high accountability is guaranteed. Last, but definitely not least, the current system has low accessibility for the non-wealthy in terms of elite capture, while a re-structured system with a level playing field would be high, thereby enhancing political participation in an equitable manner.
What Ghana Actually Needs
The consensus among reform advocates points toward open primaries with universal member suffrage:
- All party members in good standing vote directly in primaries
- Strict campaign finance regulations with spending limits
- Independent Electoral Commission oversight of party internal elections
- Transparency requirements for party funding and expenditures
- Digital voting systems with audit trails to ensure security
Why This Matters Now
The Supreme Court case that could shape Ghana’s electoral system, In the event that the ruling is upheld, it could:
- Force parties revise their constitutions.
- Ensure that rules of parties are carefully considered by the EC before being registered
- Make universal suffrage the constitutional minimum for party elections, rather than the current practice.
Conclusion
The delegates-based electoral system as it exists today is not the solution to Ghana’s political moneyocracy, but rather a contributor to the problem. A skewed delegate body and a certain concentration of power can offer opportunities for financial manipulation, which are not present in mass participation systems.
The road to the future is an open primary with universal member suffrage, stringent campaign finance laws and an independent watchdog. Ghana could pioneer the continent in democratic innovation by proving that increased voter turnout, not limited voter rolls, is the most effective way to protect against the “corrosive power of money in politics.
The Supreme Court’s ruling will decide whether Ghana’s political parties uphold the democratic ideals of the 1992 Constitution, or are merely closed cabals for the benefit of the rich. The question is whether reform toward more participation, or continued loss of democratic legitimacy are to be accepted.
Adam Khan
Research Fellow
