There are numerous constitutional breaches underpinning the National Council’s 17 June 2025 directive—an action many have called a legal misadventure laced with political mischief. This analysis exposes the flaws with precision, leaving no loophole for any good-faith or bad-faith critic to defend the Council’s position.
1. Violation of Article 10(2): Annual Conference Cannot Precede Regional Conferences
The Constitution of the NPP is unequivocal. Article 10(2) mandates that:
“The National Annual Delegates Conference shall meet once every year, at least four (4) weeks after the last of the Regional Annual Delegates Conferences.”
Yet, the National Council proposes to hold a National Annual Delegates Conference in July 2025, without first convening Regional Conferences, let alone Constituency Delegates Conferences, which are fundamental precursors.
This is not a procedural lapse—it is a brazen constitutional defiance. The timelines are not discretionary; they are sequenced and mandatory. By bypassing the hierarchy of conferences, the Council attempts to manufacture legitimacy where the Constitution demands an earned process.
2. Breach of Article 19: No Prior Circulation of Amendment Proposals
The second constitutional casualty is Article 19, governing amendments:
“No amendment shall be made unless the General Secretary has circulated the proposed amendment to every Regional and Constituency office at least one (1) month before the National Annual Delegates Conference.”
Here’s the legal reality:
- No known circular or document has been sent to all 276 Constituency and Regional offices regarding any proposed amendment.
- The General Secretary, Justin Frimpong Koduah, a lawyer by training, is yet to fulfil this obligation, and yet the Council pretends to act with legal authority.
This renders any proposal for constitutional amendment—including the scheduling of the flagbearer election or any deviation from the constitutional electoral calendar—null and void ab initio.
3. Flagrant Overreach: National Council Has No Amendment Powers
The NPP Constitution does not confer amendment authority on the National Council.
Per Article 9(1):
“There shall be a National Council which, subject to the decisions of the National Annual Delegates Conference, shall direct the affairs of the party in between meetings of the National Annual Delegates Conference…”
The operative phrase—“subject to the decisions of the National Annual Delegates Conference”—is not ornamental. It confirms that the Council is subordinate, not sovereign.
The Council cannot:
- Propose election dates independent of a duly constituted Delegates Conference,
- Pre-emptively fix a flagbearer contest date (January 31, 2026) in the absence of approval from the Annual Delegates Conference, and
- Usurp the supreme decision-making powers constitutionally assigned to Conference delegates.
This is not just overreach. It is a power grab, incompatible with the internal rule of law the party claims to uphold.
4. Improper Reliance on “Notice of Poll” Mechanism
The idea that the Council can rely on “Notice of Poll” mechanisms—typically invoked after processes have been constitutionally validated—is legally bankrupt.
No poll can be set in motion in anticipation of approval. Approvals must precede action. Anything else is administrative fiction, not law.
5. Malice and Preferential Bias: The Spirit Behind the Decision
The NPP Constitution is built not just on written law but on the spirit of fairness and order. Yet, the sequence of events, the stealth of the Council’s decisions, and the absence of broad consultation suggest a deliberate ploy to skew the process in favour of a preferred candidate.
By rushing procedures, ignoring constitutional triggers, and bypassing the organs of representation, the Council’s action can only be described as:
- Mischievous in intent,
- Capricious in method,
- Illegitimate in effect.
6. Closing the Loopholes: Precedents, Clarity, and Best Practice
To those who may attempt to defend the Council’s action with vague references to “urgent necessity” or “administrative discretion,” let us be clear:
- There is no “doctrine of necessity” clause in the NPP Constitution allowing for shortcuts.
- The supremacy of the Delegates Conference cannot be suspended in favour of expediency.
- Precedents in 2014, 2018, and 2022 show that proper sequencing was always followed.
Where the Constitution speaks clearly, no Council can reinterpret it on whim.
A Council in Crisis or a Constitution in Ruins?
The NPP National Council’s 17 June 2025 directive is not just flawed—it is fundamentally unconstitutional. It:
- Breaches Article 10(2) by jumping the conference sequence,
- Violates Article 19 due to lack of procedural amendment notice.
- Overreaches its authority by behaving like a law-making body,
- Prejudices the race for flagbearer with a date that has no legal backing.
If not reversed, the directive will become a permanent scar on the NPP’s democratic credentials and an invitation to chaos within its ranks. The party must either return to constitutional order or forfeit its moral right to govern a constitutional republic.
By Charles McCarthy, A Political Communication Strategist
