The Member of Parliament for Suame, John Darko, says the Supreme Court’s ruling to abolish the political party delegates system is “much ado about nothing.”
The legal counsel to the Minority caucus argues that despite the ruling, political parties will still limit participation in their presidential and parliamentary primaries to registered party members, a system he believes is effectively no different from the existing delegates arrangement.
Speaking to journalists on Wednesday, July 29, he maintained that the ruling is unlikely to bring any significant change to the way political parties conduct their internal election.
“If you drill it down to the Supreme Court decision, I think it’s much ado about nothing. Because no matter what, a group of people will be determined as the elected at any point in time. We can’t allow the state to burden the cost; allow the person seeking power to bear the cost. We can’t have a government where every cost will be pushed to the state,” he said.
His comments follow the Supreme Court’s 5–2 majority decision, which declared the delegate system used by political parties to elect their presidential and parliamentary candidates unconstitutional and ordered all political parties to replace it with a system that allows all members in good standing to vote in their internal primaries.
The Court further directed political parties to put in place the necessary measures within one year of the judgment to ensure that all eligible members can participate directly in the selection of presidential and parliamentary candidates.
The decision arose from a suit filed by Prof. Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng, Dr. Nyaho Nyaho-Tamakloe and Dr. Christine Amoako-Nuamah, who challenged the constitutionality of delegate-based primaries, arguing that they disenfranchise ordinary party members and offend the democratic principles enshrined in the 1992 Constitution.
In its judgment, the Court held that the delegate system creates a limited electoral market that is vulnerable to money politics and that opening party primaries to all members in good standing would better promote constitutional democracy, political participation and accountability.
The Court also answered in the affirmative the issue of whether the Electoral Commission bears responsibility for ensuring that political parties organise themselves in accordance with constitutional requirements. It consequently granted all the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs.
The Court restrained political parties from continuing to select presidential and parliamentary candidates through the delegate system and ordered them to adopt new arrangements within one year that allow all members in good standing to vote.
