By Divine Mawuli Akwensivie (PhD, MCIM)
The National Democratic Congress (NDC) recently conducted parliamentary primaries to elect a suitable candidate for an impending by-election following the death of the incumbent Member of Parliament. While the exercise was expected to be conducted with solemnity and strategic foresight, it instead generated significant controversy. The parliamentary primary was marked by widespread allegations of vote buying, voter manipulation, and inducement, practices that have frequently been reported in previous internal and national elections across the political divide.
In the aftermath of the widely publicized allegations surrounding the victory of Hon. Baba Jamal, the, the party acting through its General Secretary called for immediate investigations into the allegations through the formation of a 3-member committee. This was followed by the President’s recall of Hon. Baba Jamal from his role as Ghana’s High Commissioner to Nigeria to pave way for investigations into the alleged voter inducement. Following swiftly was the NDC Members of Parliament, acting through their Majority Leader, Hon. Mahama Ayariga, who also called for the annulment of the results and a rerun of the election. At face value, these actions appeared to reflect a commitment to internal accountability and institutional integrity. However, subsequent developments have revealed underlying tensions and contradictions within the NDC party that raises broader questions about the consistency and credibility of its internal democratic process.
Even before the investigative committee concluded its work, public opinion had become deeply polarized regarding both the intent and legitimacy of the calls to annul the results. As expected, the controversy quickly degenerated into the familiar political blame game, with both the NDC and the NPP attempting to extract political capital from the controversy. When the committee eventually presented its findings, it reportedly established that various forms of voter inducement had occurred. However, the committee also noted that the practice was not limited to a single contestant. The reasons offered were procedural, technical, and strategic in nature.
Despite recommendations and public pressure, the NDC was unable to annul the results. In a press conference, the General Secretary of the NDC explained why the results could not be invalidated, even though evidence suggested that all the contestants had engaged in some form of inducement. The notable reasons included:
First, widespread culpability: The committee found that inducement was not confined to one candidate; annulling the results on that basis would implicate all contestants and potentially invalidate the entire primary process.
Second, the absence of clear legal thresholds: The party’s constitution and guidelines did not provide sufficiently explicit sanctions or automatic annulment provisions for the scale and nature of inducement established, making outright cancellation procedurally difficult.
Third, political and strategic considerations: With a by-election imminent, prolonging internal dispute could weaken party unity and undermine its electoral prospects in the constituency.
Reset Ghana Agenda: Principle vs. Practice
The controversy surrounding the Ayawaso East primaries must be examined within the broader framework of the NDC’s “Reset Ghana Agenda.” The Reset Ghana Agenda has been articulated as a reform-oriented and corrective political vision aimed at restoring integrity in governance, strengthening institutions, fighting corruption, and promoting accountability. It promised to restore integrity in governance, strengthen institutions, and combat corruption. This acknowledges past wrong doings within our political systems and governance structures.
Internal party democracy forms the foundation of any credible national reform agenda. When allegations of vote buying and voter inducement emerge within a political party that positions itself as the champion for national transformation, the moral and political stakes become significantly higher. The episode thus raises several critical questions:
First, can a party promise to reset national governance while struggling to enforce discipline within its own ranks?
Second, does the decision not to annul the results reflect pragmatism, or does it signal tolerance for entrenched political culture?
Third, what institutional reforms are needed within political parties to eliminate inducement politics?
To the party’s credit, the party did initiate an investigation and publicly addressed the matter. Nevertheless, critics contend that without decisive sanctions and far-reaching internal reforms, it risk being perceived as largely symbolic rather than genuinely transformative.
The Broader Democratic Implication
Vote buying and inducement are not challenges peculiar to any single political party. Rather, they represent a systemic weakness in Ghana’s political culture that demands leadership defined not by deflecting blame, but by setting and enforcing higher standards. Episodes such as the Ayawaso East primaries presents critical opportunities for political leadership to demonstrate that internal democracy can be strengthened, and that genuine political renewal must begin from within.
For the Reset Ghana Agenda to carry credibility, it must extend beyond national rhetoric to internal party conduct. Genuine reform demands not only investigation but enforcement, not only rhetoric but structural change. The Ayawaso East episode, therefore, is more than an internal party matter. It is a test case and one that challenges the NDC to align its internal political culture with its national reform ambitions.
When internal primaries degenerate into financial contests, competence, ideas, and public service take a back seat to purchasing power. The long-term consequence is a political class selected not by merit or vision, but by financial leverage. The Ayawaso East primaries could have been a defining moment for the NDC and a chance to demonstrate that the Reset Ghana Agenda is not mere campaign rhetoric but a genuine internal transformation. Unfortunately, the party was faced with genuine procedural challenges given the absence of a clear internal party guidelines to deal with such matters within the limited time of 11th February within which the party must file a nomination for its candidate for the actual contest schedule for 3rd March.
Beyond its immediate implications, the Ayawaso East By-Election primaries presents an important lesson for all political parties in Ghana particularly the NDC and the NPP committed to tackling voter inducement in our national politics to quickly align their internal party policies with the procedural and constitutional frameworks of the Electoral Commission so that in future by elections, such disputes can be resolved quickly to avoid any procedural challenges. Political parties are microcosms of national governance. If internal democracy is compromised by inducement and expediency, national reform will then become aspirational at best. The Reset Ghana Agenda will only acquire substantive meaning if it begins not at the ballot box of the general election, but at the polling station of its own primaries. While the political cost of such a Reset Agenda may be high, given the elevated expectations it generates, the greater risk lies not in economic or electoral outcomes, but in the consistency with which proclaimed values are upheld. A genuine Reset Agenda must first be institutionalized internally before it can be convincingly projected and embraced at the national level. That is why the expansion of the initial 3-member committee to a 7-member committee to oversee internal reforms within the NDC to avoid any future procedural challenged is a welcome news and will become a future reference point for any internal elections in the NDC and beyond. Together, lets Reset Ghana not by words, but by action.
The Author is a Political Marketing Researcher & Strategist, Accra Technical University Business School-ATUBS. 0541458325