Ghanaian MPs Ahmed Ibrahim and Professor Kingsley Nyarko have offered contrasting views on the Supreme Court’s decision that the delegate system used by political parties to select presidential and parliamentary candidates is unconstitutional.
The ruling was welcomed by Prof Nyarko, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) MP for Kwadaso, who said it would make internal party elections more inclusive by giving every registered member a say in choosing candidates.
But Mr Ibrahim, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) MP for Banda and Minister of Local Government, Chieftaincy, and Religious Affairs, argued that the decision could disadvantage minority tribes in some constituencies.
The two MPs expressed their views last Wednesday following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Prof Nyarko described the judgment as a “step in the right direction”, saying it would allow all duly registered members aligned with a political party to participate in its internal elections.
He said the decision would ensure that party members were not excluded from determining who would represent them in presidential and parliamentary elections.
However, he also raised doubts about whether the ruling could achieve its intended purpose without further measures to address the influence of money in Ghanaian politics.
Prof Nyarko said the delegate system was not an effective way of “electing our leaders” in an environment where political activity had become increasingly monetised.
“I always agree that whether it is the Electoral College or expanding it to include as many people, I think until there is punitive legislation to deal with monetisation or vote buying, it will be difficult for the ruling to achieve the intended purpose,” he said.
He said the expansion of participation in party elections would need to be accompanied by legislation capable of dealing with vote buying and other forms of financial influence.
Concern over minority representation
Mr Ibrahim accepted that the Supreme Court’s ruling was constitutionally correct but said it was socially discriminatory because ethnicity remained part of Ghana’s social structures.
He warned that the judgment could give dominant tribes greater control over the choice of parliamentary candidates in some districts, while minority candidates could be “eliminated”.
“If you have a constituency where three-quarters of the tribes are from different minority groups, nobody from that constituency will be elected into this House,” he said.
Mr Ibrahim said minority groups could become discouraged if the candidates they put forward repeatedly lost elections. In such circumstances, he argued, members of those communities might conclude that someone from their tribe could never win and could be tempted to contest as independent candidates.
He also said candidates from minority tribes who had integrity could face pressure from larger groups during the selection process.
“When people of integrity come from minority tribes, they are sometimes bullied by the majority.
As a result, the majority may present any candidate who can win, while a person of integrity from a minority tribe loses.”
“This is because democracy is the rule of the majority,” he said, warning that majority tribes could consequently dominate elections and sideline minority candidates.
Mr Ibrahim acknowledged that the delegate system was cost-effective and easier to manage. He also said it could help political parties select candidates with strong records who could then be put before voters.
“Apart from helping to manage the democratic system, universal adult suffrage can lead to unqualified candidates being elected.
