|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Claim: A Facebook post by Ghana Today claims that the Supreme Court made a “bold move against Asiedu Nketiah” after ruling that all registered members of political parties must vote in internal party elections.
Verdict: Misleading! While the Supreme Court has indeed declared Ghana’s delegate system for electing national executives of political parties unconstitutional, the ruling was not directed at Johnson Asiedu Nketiah personally. Rather, it affects all political parties in Ghana that use delegate-based systems for internal elections, including the NDC, NPP and other registered political parties.
Full Text
On July 29, 2026, the Facebook page Ghana Today, with 62k followers, published a graphic bearing the headline: “Supreme Court makes bold move against Asiedu Nketiah; declares all registered members of a political party must vote in internal party elections.”
The post, which was equally forwarded into another political ‘NPP Official’ group with over 150k followers, quickly attracted reactions from users, many interpreting the decision as a legal setback for the NDC National Chairman.
Some comments suggested the ruling was punishment for Asiedu Nketiah, while others argued it would improve democracy within political parties.
The publication followed widespread reports that Ghana’s Supreme Court had declared as unconstitutional the delegate system used by political parties to elect their national executives.
Because the graphic specifically singles out Asiedu Nketiah despite the court’s decision having broader implications, DUBAWA investigated.
Verification
A review of the Supreme Court decision by DUBAWA shows that the Court did not issue a ruling against Johnson Asiedu Nketiah personally.
Instead, the Supreme Court held that the delegate system used by political parties to elect national executives violates the constitutional rights of registered party members because it limits participation to selected delegates rather than the entire party membership.
The Court consequently ruled that:
- All registered members of a political party should be allowed to vote in elections for national executives;
- Restricting voting rights to delegates is unconstitutional;
- The decision applies generally to political parties operating such delegate systems.
Nothing in the judgment indicates that the ruling targeted Asiedu Nketiah or the NDC alone. Rather, it establishes a constitutional principle applicable across Ghana’s political party system.
The wording used by the Ghana Today post, thus, “makes bold move against Asiedu Nketiah”, creates the false impression that the Supreme Court singled out the NDC Chairman, when in fact the ruling concerns the legality of delegate systems used by political parties generally.
Media reportage
As reported by Citi Newsroom and other major media outlets such as JoyNews and Graphic Online, none singled out Asiedu Nketiah as the only one who has been affected by the judgement.
Pattern of misleading framing
DUBAWA also observed that the Ghana Today Facebook page has, in recent months, repeatedly published sensational political graphics that personalise institutional decisions by attaching them to prominent political figures.
Such framing often exaggerates or distorts the substance of the underlying news, encouraging readers to believe a general policy or court ruling was directed at a specific individual.
In this instance, although the accompanying statement that all registered members should vote reflects the essence of the Court’s ruling, the suggestion that it was “against Asiedu Nketiah” is unsupported by the judgment and misrepresents the scope of the decision.
Background
The Supreme Court’s ruling stems from a constitutional challenge filed by Prof. Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng, Dr Nyaho Nyaho-Tamakloe and Dr Christine Amoako-Nuamah, who argued that the delegate system used by political parties to elect presidential and parliamentary candidates disenfranchised the majority of ordinary party members. They contended that restricting voting rights to a limited group of delegates violated Article 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution, which requires political parties to conform to democratic principles.
In a 5–2 majority decision delivered on July 29, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs and declared the delegate-based electoral system unconstitutional. The Court ruled that all registered members of a political party in good standing must be allowed to participate directly in selecting the party’s presidential and parliamentary candidates, effectively replacing the delegate system with a “one member, one vote” approach.
Meanwhile, political parties have been given one year to amend their constitutions and internal electoral processes to comply with the ruling, while all previous elections and decisions conducted under the delegate system remain valid.
Conclusion
The claim is misleading. The Supreme Court did not rule against Johnson Asiedu Nketiah personally. It ruled that delegate-based systems used by political parties in electing national executives are unconstitutional because they deny ordinary registered members the right to participate. The decision applies to all political parties that operate such systems, not just the NDC or its chairperson.
