Do Ghana’s Laws Punish Intra-Party Election Offences? Examining the Current Legal Framework and the call for Reform

Following the NDC’s parliamentary primaries in the Ayawaso East constituency on 7th February, 2026 towards the March 3^rd, 2026 by-election ¹, there has been palpable public disquiet over the alleged corruption of voters by the candidates by the sharing of money, electronic gadgets among others, and the general over-monetisation of intra-party elections in Ghana. Indeed, in recent times, after every election, the issue of voter corruption and inducement through gifts, promises, etc., comes up.

It would seem that it has become accepted that internal party elections are won by the highest bidder. But could the behaviour of ‘buying’ votes during internal party contests be a crime under the Criminal Offences Act ², or any other relevant law in Ghana?

In this article, the author scrutinises the laws in Ghana which punish electoral offences, to determine whether our current laws apply to intra-party elections, and the way forward.

ARE POLITICAL PARTIES STATE OR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS?

It is the argument of many in the legal community that political parties are public institutions of a sort and therefore their internal elections are amenable to criminal laws concerning public elections.

Pursuant to this assertion, provisions quoted by proponents of this school of thought include Article 55(5) ³, which states that “The internal organisation of a political party shall conform to democratic principles and its actions and purposes shall not contravene or be inconsistent with this Constitution or any other law.”

This provision of the Constitution pertains to the internal structures and organisation of the party. A requirement that parties organize and conduct their activities to reflect and conform to the democratic tenets that we, as a people ascribe to in the Constitution, does not, in any way fathomable, make political parties assume the nature of a state or public institution.

Again, some have pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision in Republic v Yebbi and Avalifo ⁴ to argue that political parties are public institutions of a sort and therefore their internal elections are public elections. Let me state emphatically that this was not the decision in Republic v Yebbi and Avalifo.

The Supreme Court in Republic v Yebbi and Avalifo did not convert political parties into public institutions of any sort; it only elevated their activities to matters of public interest. Hence, where public interest is a specific requirement to found a crime or clothe a forum with jurisdiction to adjudicate on such matters, the private nature of political parties shall not serve as a bar.

Acquah JSC wrote that, “Certainly under our present system, a political party is not a state institution in the sense that it is not set up nor owned by the state.” Indeed, the fundamental question in Republic v Yebbi and Avalifo concerned the jurisdiction of Regional Tribunals, which are tasked with adjudicating matters of public interest under the Courts Act ⁵. Effectively, political parties are not public institutions of any kind, but their activities are of public interest.

One of the core principles in criminal jurisprudence under Article 19(5) of the Constitution is that a crime must be specifically stated in a written law, adequately defined, and the punishment prescribed. Again, except for contempt of court, no criminal offence shall arise out of the common law. Effectively, a substantive crime cannot be founded on a judicial decision where the crime, who may be charged under it, and other relevant details are not stated in a written law, otherwise it would offend these core principles.

RELEVANT GHANAIAN LAWS THAT PUNISH CORRUPTION IN ELECTIONS

The first provisions to consider are Sections 240 and 241 of Act 29, which are set out below:

Section 240: Explanation as to corruption by public officer, etc.

“A public officer, juror, or voter is guilty of corruption in respect of the duties of his office or vote if he directly or indirectly agrees or offers to permit his conduct as such officer, juror, or voter to be influenced by the gift, promise, or prospect of any valuable consideration to be received by him, or by any other person, from any person whomsoever.”

Section 241: Explanation as to corruption of public officer, etc.

“A person is guilty of corrupting a public officer, juror, or voter in respect of the duties of his office or in respect of his vote if he endeavours, directly or indirectly, to influence the conduct of such public officer, juror, or voter in respect of the duties of his office or in respect of his vote by the gift, promise, or prospect of any valuable consideration to be received by such public officer, juror, or voter, or by any other person, from any person whomsoever.”

From the provisions above, the operative word is “public,” which within the sections must be interpreted as public officer, public juror, or public voter. The issue of what “public” means is addressed in subsequent paragraphs.

A more relevant, though still inapplicable, provision in Act 29 is found in Section 256, which states that “Whoever is guilty of corruption, intimidation, or personation in respect of a public election shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall, during seven years from the date of his conviction, be incapable of voting at any public election and of holding the public office in respect of which the election was held, or any public office of the same nature.”

Others have also pointed to the Representation of the People’s Act ⁶, particularly Section 33, which criminalizes bribery involving the exchange of money, gifts, or promises for votes. To this, I say that the preamble of the Act is clear as to its scope of application. It relates only to the public election of parliamentarians in general elections and related matters.

ARE INTRA-PARTY ELECTIONS PUBLIC ELECTIONS?

It is obvious that the operative word “public” and the phrase “public election” could only apply to internal elections of political parties if such elections can be interpreted to be public in nature. However, the law does not support such an interpretation.

What is a public election? Article 42 provides that “Every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years of age or above and of sound mind has the right to vote and is entitled to be registered as a voter for the purposes of public elections and referenda.”

Article 51 also states that “The Electoral Commission shall, by constitutional instrument, make regulations for the effective performance of its functions under this Constitution or any other law and, in particular, for the registration of voters, the conduct of public elections and referenda, including provision for voting by proxy.”

While these provisions do not specifically define what a public election is, it can categorically be stated, by contradistinction, that an internal election of a political party is not a public election. This is mainly because the requirements for each are different. Not every citizen of Ghana who is eighteen years of age or above and of sound mind can vote in the internal election of a political party, and the Electoral Commission is not required to make a constitutional instrument regulating internal elections of political parties. Again, none of the provisions considered above state “public interest” as a defining factor of what constitutes a public election.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

From the foregoing, the irresistible conclusion is that political parties are not public institutions and their internal elections are not public elections. Consequently, our current criminal laws punishing corruption in elections do not apply to the internal elections of political parties.

It is indeed true that political parties are private associations whose activities are of public interest. They are practically the gatekeepers of power, and their internal elections essentially determine who governs. We therefore cannot, as a state, leave their internal elections as spaces for lawlessness, corruption, and voter intimidation.

In the interest of our democracy, and in recognition of the influence political parties wield in our multi-party system, it is imperative that we enact laws that specifically punish, inter alia, corruption and intimidation before, during and after presidential and parliamentary primaries and other internal elections conducted by political parties in Ghana. I therefore identify with the call by OccupyGhana for the introduction of a bill to punish intra-party election offences ⁷.

The Author

Joseph Naah-Yerreh: BL Candidate (GSL), LLB (KNUST- WIUC) & BTech (ATU). He is a Legal Researcher, Writer and Editor at Guidelinelaw.com.

References

1. Graphic Online, ‘Baba Jamal Wins Ayawaso East NDC Parliamentary Primary’ (Graphic, 20 October 2025) https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/general-news/baba-jamal-wins-ayawaso-east-ndc-parliamentary-primary.html ‘accessed 10 February 2026.’
2. Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), Republic of Ghana.
3. Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992.
4. Republic v Yebbi and Avalifo [1999–2000] 2 GLR 50.
5. Courts Act, 1963 (Act 459), Republic of Ghana.
6. Representation of the People Act, 1992 (PNDC Law 284)
7. Citi Newsroom, ‘OccupyGhana Calls for Introduction of Bill to Punish Intra-Party Elections Offences’ (Citi Newsroom, 31 October 2023) https://citinewsroom.com/2023/10/occupyghana-calls-for-introduction-of-bill-to-punish-intra-party-elections-offences/ accessed 10 February 2026.