Full Judgment: Supreme Court's full reasoning on political party delegate system
In its full judgment delivered on July 29, 2026, the court held by a 5-2 majority that delegate-based systems which prevent ordinary party members in good standing from voting in candidate-selection elections violate Article 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution.
The Supreme Court has explained that political parties perform a public constitutional function and cannot treat the selection of presidential and parliamentary candidates as a purely internal affair beyond judicial scrutiny.
In its full judgment delivered on July 29, 2026, the court held by a 5-2 majority that delegate-based systems which prevent ordinary party members in good standing from voting in candidate-selection elections violate Article 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution.
The action was brought by Prof. Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng, Dr Nyaho Nyaho-Tamakloe and Dr Christine Amoako-Nuamah against the New Patriotic Party, National Democratic Congress and Convention People’s Party. The Electoral Commission and Attorney-General were also joined as defendants.
The plaintiffs challenged provisions in the parties’ constitutions that reserve the election of presidential and parliamentary candidates for selected executives, officeholders and delegates. They argued that the arrangements disenfranchised the majority of party members and failed to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the internal organisation of political parties conform to democratic principles.
In its majority opinion, the court reasoned that political parties are not ordinary private associations because the Constitution has entrusted them with the exclusive role of sponsoring candidates for public office. Candidate selection, it said, therefore lies at the centre of a party’s internal organisation and must comply with constitutional standards.
The court interpreted “democratic principles” under Article 55(5) as imposing a binding and enforceable minimum standard, rather than merely requiring parties to follow their own rules. That standard includes political equality, broad and meaningful participation, transparent and secret ballots, leadership accountability and equal voting rights in the selection of candidates.
It consequently held that every party member in good standing must be permitted to vote directly in the election of the party’s presidential and parliamentary candidates. A party may determine reasonable conditions for good standing, including registration, payment of dues and a minimum period of membership, but those requirements must be published in advance, applied equally and not used to exclude sections of the membership.
The majority stressed that its decision does not prevent political parties from vetting aspirants, setting qualification requirements, charging filing fees or providing for run-offs. Parties also remain free to use delegates for the election of party executives and the conduct of conferences. The ruling is limited to the selection of presidential and parliamentary candidates.
The court further found that the Electoral Commission has a continuing constitutional and statutory responsibility to ensure that the constitutions and electoral arrangements of registered political parties conform to democratic principles. This responsibility, it said, does not end after a party has been registered.
Accordingly, the court ordered all registered political parties to stop using electoral colleges to select presidential and parliamentary candidates and establish, within one year of the judgment, systems that allow all registered members in good standing to vote directly.
The court, however, protected decisions, appointments and elections previously undertaken under the delegate systems. It held that such acts would remain valid and would not be invalidated solely because of the judgment.
Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Justices Gabriel Pwamang, Senyo Dzamefe, Sophia Adinyira Suurbaareh and Tanko Amadu formed the majority. Justices Samuel Asiedu and Ernest Gaewu dissented.
In the minority opinion, Justice Asiedu maintained that Article 55(5) does not prescribe universal participation in party primaries or make delegate systems unconstitutional. He reasoned that democratic principles encompass a range of values and organisational models, and that parties should retain the freedom to choose their internal electoral structures within the Constitution and their own rules.
The minority therefore concluded that the plaintiffs had not established that the delegate systems operated by the three political parties contravened Article 55(5) and would have dismissed the action.
Read full judgment below;
