12/08/2025
My Lords,
This case is not about whether a political party can charge a reasonable filing fee to process candidacies.
It is about whether a political party can, as a condition for participating in an internal contest, compel members to pay a ₵4 million “development fee” — a sum unrelated to the cost of running the contest, and which has the effect of excluding capable candidates who cannot afford it.
The NPP has asked candidates to pay ₵100,000 for nomination forms and ₵500,000 for filing. As exorbitant as that is, that is not why I am here.
I am here because they have also subtly smuggled into the nomination booklet a separate sheet of paper demanding ₵4 million from each aspirant, called a “development fee.”
Issues for Determination
1. Whether the imposition of a ₵4 million “development fee” as a condition for contesting in an internal party election violates Article 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution.
2. Whether the imposition of the said “development fee” is arbitrary and capricious in violation of Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution.
Arguments on the Issues
Issue 1 – Violation of Article 55(5)
Article 55(5) provides that the internal organization 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.
Article 55(2) guarantees every citizen of voting age the right to join a political party and to participate in its activities.
Together, these provisions impose on political parties a constitutional duty to conduct their internal affairs in a manner that does not exclude members on arbitrary or discriminatory grounds.
A ₵4 million “development fee” is not linked to the legitimate purpose of candidacy vetting. It is a wealth-based barrier that effectively disenfranchises competent but less affluent members, concentrating leadership opportunities in the hands of a wealthy elite.
Such an exclusionary rule undermines internal party democracy and offends the spirit and letter of Article 55(5).
Issue 2 – Arbitrary and Capricious Decision (Article 296)
Article 296 provides that any discretionary power conferred by the Constitution or any other law shall be exercised without arbitrariness, caprice, or bias and in accordance with due process.
Even if the National Executive Committee has authority under the NPP Constitution to set a “prescribed fee,” that discretion must be exercised reasonably and in good faith.
The introduction of a ₵4 million “development fee”, wholly unrelated to the cost of running the primaries and imposed in addition to already high nomination and filing fees, is disproportionate, unnecessary, and therefore arbitrary within the meaning of Article 296.
Article 12 of the NPP Constitution provides only that a presidential aspirant must have “paid the prescribed fee for Presidential Aspirant by the deadline set by the National Executive Committee.”
This language refers to a single prescribed candidacy fee, ordinarily the filing fee. It contains no authority for a separate “development fee.” By imposing such a fee as a mandatory condition for candidacy, the NEC has acted beyond its powers, further evidencing arbitrariness under Article 296.
Reliefs Sought
The Applicant respectfully prays for the following orders:
1. A declaration that the ₵4 million “development fee” imposed by the NPP as a condition for contesting in its presidential primaries violates Article 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional, null, and void.
2. A declaration that the imposition of the said “development fee” is arbitrary and capricious and in violation of Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution.
3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, or assigns from enforcing the said fee or disqualifying any aspirant for non-payment of same.
4. An order of mandamus directing the Respondents to conduct their internal elections in compliance with the 1992 Constitution and their own constitution, free from unlawful and exclusionary financial barriers.
5. Costs in favor of the Applicant.
6. Any other orders this Honourable Court may deem fit to meet the ends of justice.
7. An order of perpetual injunction restraining Yaanom from insulting, assaulting, heckling, or persecuting GOGO in any manner whatsoever in connection with his opposition to the said fee.
Conclusion
My Lords, this ₵4 million fee is not party development; it is candidate elimination. It is an economic filter designed to predetermine leadership pools in a way that violates Article 55(5) and offends Article 296 of our Constitution. I respectfully urge this Court to grant the reliefs sought.
PS: Yɛde post no bɛto hɔ. Yɛnyɛ comprehension consultants.
Da Yie!
Copied
Kwaku Azar
