Six NPP members allege denial of fair hearing in Nandom constituency election dispute

Six members of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in Ghana's Nandom Constituency have accused the party's Appeals Committee of denying them a fair hearing in an internal election dispute. The petitioners allege that they were not provided with crucial appeal documents, thereby frustrating their ability to present their case against a candidate, Patrick Nakpenaa, who they claim campaigned for an opposing party in the 2024 general elections. This development highlights critical issues surrounding internal party democracy, adherence to due process, and the constitutional right to a fair hearing within Ghana's political landscape, raising questions about the efficacy and transparency of internal party dispute resolution mechanisms.

Internal party disputes, particularly those concerning candidate eligibility and electoral processes, are a recurring feature of Ghana's political landscape. These disputes often test the robustness of party constitutions and their adherence to fundamental principles of natural justice. A recent contention within the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the Nandom Constituency has brought these issues to the fore, with six party members alleging a denial of fair hearing by the party's Appeals Committee.

The petitioners claim that the Appeals Committee failed to provide them with essential appeal documents, thereby impeding their capacity to effectively argue their case against a candidate, Patrick Nakpenaa, who they had sought to disqualify from the constituency chairmanship race. This incident underscores the delicate balance between a political party's autonomy in managing its internal affairs and the constitutional imperative to uphold fair hearing principles, even in non-judicial settings. The resolution of this matter will have significant implications not only for the NPP's internal cohesion but also for the broader standards of democratic governance within Ghanaian political parties.

The legal framework governing political parties in Ghana is primarily rooted in the 1992 Constitution and the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574). The Constitution guarantees fundamental human rights, including the right to administrative justice and a fair hearing. Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution mandates that administrative bodies and officials must act fairly and reasonably and comply with legal requirements, granting aggrieved persons the right to seek redress before a court or tribunal. Furthermore, Article 19(13) extends the guarantee of a fair hearing within a reasonable time to adjudicating authorities determining civil rights or obligations.

The Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574) provides the statutory basis for the formation, registration, and operation of political parties, emphasizing that their internal organisation must conform to democratic principles. This legislative mandate implies that internal party processes, including dispute resolution, must align with principles of fairness and due process. The NPP, like other political parties, has its own constitution and internal regulations that outline procedures for internal elections and the resolution of disputes arising therefrom. These guidelines typically include provisions for appeals committees and disciplinary actions, which are expected to operate transparently and impartially.

The core of the Nandom Constituency dispute lies in the allegation that the NPP Appeals Committee denied the petitioners access to "key appeal documents." This alleged procedural lapse directly implicates the fundamental principle of *audi alteram partem*, a cornerstone of natural justice, which requires that all parties to a dispute be given an adequate opportunity to present their case and respond to allegations made against them. The Supreme Court of Ghana has consistently affirmed the importance of this principle, holding that a person cannot be found guilty or liable without fair notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to defend themselves. The denial of access to relevant documents, such as the appellant's notice of appeal, would undoubtedly undermine the petitioners' ability to prepare and present an effective response, thereby rendering any subsequent hearing procedurally unfair.

Ghanaian jurisprudence, while respecting the autonomy of political parties, has shown a willingness to intervene where internal processes violate fundamental rights or statutory provisions. The landmark case of *Tehn-Addy v. Attorney-General & Electoral Commission* [1997-98] 1 GLR 47, though concerning the right to vote in national elections, established that fundamental rights cannot be arbitrarily denied and that administrative bodies have a duty to facilitate these rights. By analogy, while internal party elections are distinct from national polls, the principles of fairness and due process enshrined in the Constitution should guide their conduct, especially when membership rights, such as the right to contest or participate in party governance, are at stake. The NPP's own revised guidelines for internal elections emphasize dispute resolution mechanisms and the need for transparency, particularly concerning voter registration and access to membership registers, suggesting an internal recognition of these principles.

Furthermore, this is not an isolated incident in the Nandom Constituency. Previous reports indicate instances where NPP executives were dismissed without recourse to disciplinary provisions, with the aggrieved parties citing a lack of natural justice and adherence to the 1992 Constitution. Such recurring issues suggest a systemic challenge in ensuring that internal party disciplinary and appeals processes consistently uphold fair hearing standards. Should the internal remedies prove inadequate or unfair, the petitioners may have grounds to seek judicial review, as administrative actions that violate constitutional guarantees of fair hearing are subject to scrutiny by the courts. The courts in Ghana seriously frown upon breaches of the *audi alteram partem* rule, to the extent that its denial is seen as a basic fundamental error which should nullify proceedings.

The allegations by the six NPP members in Nandom Constituency underscore the critical need for political parties in Ghana to rigorously adhere to principles of natural justice and due process in their internal affairs. For legal practitioners, this case serves as a reminder that internal party dispute resolution mechanisms, though often seen as private matters, are increasingly subject to scrutiny under constitutional and administrative law principles, particularly the right to a fair hearing. Parties must ensure their appeals committees and disciplinary bodies operate with utmost transparency, providing all parties with timely access to relevant documents and a genuine opportunity to be heard.

Moving forward, it will be crucial to observe how the NPP's national leadership addresses this complaint. Failure to rectify procedural irregularities could not only lead to further internal dissent and potential legal challenges but also erode public confidence in the party's commitment to democratic principles. Practitioners advising political parties should emphasize the importance of robust, transparent, and constitutionally compliant internal regulations to mitigate such disputes and uphold the integrity of internal party democracy.