The Supreme Court has ruled that opening political party primaries to all members in good standing may not completely eradicate vote buying but will significantly reduce opportunities for targeted financial inducements during internal elections.

In the majority judgment delivered by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie in the case of Prof. Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng and two others v. the New Patriotic Party and four others, the Court held that concentrating the power to elect presidential and parliamentary candidates in the hands of a small group of delegates creates an environment that is more susceptible to monetary influence.

The ruling formed part of the Court's landmark 5–2 decision declaring the delegate system used by political parties to elect presidential and parliamentary candidates unconstitutional.

The Court subsequently ordered all political parties to adopt systems that allow every member in good standing to vote directly in internal primaries.

Addressing concerns that expanding participation may not eliminate vote buying, the Chief Justice acknowledged that money politics could persist under a broader electoral system.

"True, opening party primaries to every party member is no guarantee that money politics will disappear. Corruption is remarkably adaptable. It often changes its form rather than vanish altogether. Yet constitutional adjudication rarely offers perfect solutions," he stated.

Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie explained that courts are often required to choose the constitutional option that best promotes democratic values, even where no solution is flawless.

He observed that the delegate system enhances the value of each delegate's vote because only a relatively small number of people determine who secures a party's presidential or parliamentary nomination.

"Concentrating decisive electoral power in a relatively small body of delegates inevitably increases the value of each delegate's vote. It creates a smaller market, a more identifiable electorate and, therefore, a more attractive environment for targeted inducements," the judgment said.

While acknowledging that nationwide primaries involving thousands of party members could increase campaign costs and present logistical challenges, the Court held that a broader electorate would disperse political power and make it considerably more difficult for election outcomes to be influenced through financial inducements.

"A broader electorate may increase campaign costs, but it also disperses political power among thousands of ordinary members, making it considerably more difficult for electoral outcomes to be shaped by a relatively small number of transactions," the Chief Justice noted.

The Court further held that the decision aligns with the democratic vision of the 1992 Constitution, which emphasises broad political participation in the formation of political authority.

"For that reason, this Court may legitimately conclude that, at this stage of Ghana's democratic development, fidelity to the Constitution requires political parties to embrace the model of democracy that the Constitution itself consistently prefers for the purpose of constituting political authority," the judgment stated.

The suit was brought by Prof. Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng, Dr Nyaho Nyaho-Tamakloe and Dr Christine Amoako-Nuamah, who argued that the delegate system disenfranchised ordinary party members and violated constitutional democratic principles.

The Supreme Court granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs, restrained political parties from continuing to use the delegate system for presidential and parliamentary primaries, and gave them one year to establish mechanisms that allow all qualified members to participate directly in candidate selection.

The Court also held that the Electoral Commission has a constitutional duty to ensure political parties organise and conduct their affairs in accordance with the Constitution.

However, it ruled that decisions, appointments and actions lawfully taken under the delegate system before the judgment remain valid and cannot be invalidated solely because of the ruling.

The seven-member panel comprised Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, Justice Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, Justice Senyo Dzamefe, Justice Ernest Yao Gaewu and Justice George Kingsley Koomson.