The reported pronouncement by the immediate past Acting National Chairman of the New Patriotic Party, Joseph Danquah Smith Butey, purporting to single-handedly quash or invalidate constitutional amendments duly presented to and approved by delegates at the just-ended National Delegates Conference in Kumasi, raises a fundamental question about the meaning of internal democracy and constitutional governance within the NPP.
Let us be absolutely clear: the National Delegates Conference is not a mere ceremonial gathering. It is the constitutional forum at which duly accredited delegates exercise the authority entrusted to them by the party.
At the Kumasi conference, the 14 constitutional amendment motions were presented by the Constitution Amendment Committee and were subsequently approved by the delegates. This is not speculation; the approvals have been publicly reported, including by the Ghana News Agency and other media outlets.
The argument that the National Executives had not received the final report of the Constitutional Review/Amendment Committee before the motions were presented may raise a legitimate procedural question. But even if such a procedural concern existed, the proper response should have been to invoke the relevant provisions of the party’s constitution and have the appropriate organ determine the validity or otherwise of the process.
What can not be accepted as a matter of principle is for one individual to arrogate to himself the authority to nullify decisions already taken by the delegates.
If there was a procedural defect, show us the constitutional provision that gives one person the power to unilaterally overturn the expressed decision of the delegates.
If the amendments were improperly presented, let the constitutionally mandated organ pronounce on their validity.
If the process must be revisited, let it be done through due process—not through an individual’s directive.
The NPP cannot preach constitutionalism to Ghana while permitting its own internal decisions to be governed by unilateral administrative pronouncements.
This matter is therefore not merely about Smith Butey. It is about the institutional integrity of the New Patriotic Party.
Today it may be constitutional amendments. Tomorrow it could be an election, a disciplinary decision, a national conference resolution or another decision of the delegates.
Once the principle is established that an individual officeholder can simply overturn a decision of the delegates because he considers the process defective, we would have weakened the very institutions that are supposed to protect the party from arbitrary decision-making.
The delegates cannot be summoned to Kumasi, allowed to deliberate, vote and approve constitutional amendments, only for their collective decision to subsequently be treated as though it never happened.
That is not the internal democracy the NPP should be defending.
And this must be said without fear or favour:
The Chairman is an officeholder. The delegates are the decision-makers within the constitutional framework. No officeholder should place himself above the constitution or above the authority legitimately exercised by the delegates.
If the party believes the Kumasi amendments were improperly passed, then follow the constitution, present the legal argument, allow the competent organ to determine the matter and let the party abide by that determination.
But a unilateral directive cannot become a substitute for due process.
The NPP belongs to its members—not to an individual officeholder. The amendments stands till the proper and due processes are triggered.
Respect the delegates. Respect the constitution. Respect due process.
*NO ONE IS ABOVE THE NPP CONSTITUTION.*
*NO ONE IS ABOVE DUE PROCESS.*
*HENCE, NO ONE PERSON SHOULD BE ABOVE THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORITY OF THE DELEGATES.*
*DR BAWUMIA IS THE LEADER OF THE NPP.*
