NDC constitution lacks mechanism to punish electoral inducement – Inusah Fuseini

Former Tamale Central MP Inusah Fuseini has highlighted a critical issue within the National Democratic Congress (NDC) - the lack of a clear constitutional mechanism to address electoral inducement. During an interview on Joy News’ PM Express, Fuseini stated that this constitutional gap limits the party's leadership authority to punish offenders effectively.

The concern stems from recent allegations of widespread vote-buying during the NDC's constituency executive elections, where delegates reportedly received cash and household appliances. While the party has stated it will investigate credible evidence, Fuseini noted that no formal incidents have been established. His committee recognized the need to punish those involved but found "there was no legal mechanism in our constitution to deal with that."

This absence of a defined legal framework leaves the party's executives to decide how to proceed, making disciplinary action potentially vulnerable to challenge. Fuseini proposed constitutional amendments to address this issue, suggesting that the constituency councils of elders could handle complaints locally or refer offenders to the national headquarters, where the Functional Executive Committee would take action.

The committee is also exploring how to differentiate legitimate support for delegates from actual inducement and how to distinguish between reasonable transport allowances and excessive payments. Fuseini questioned the party's approach to payments that exceed reasonable travel costs, suggesting a need to scrutinize these proposals further before presenting them to a special congress for constitutional amendment.

Beyond disciplinary rules, Fuseini warned that rising political costs are excluding women, young people, and candidates of integrity from participating in the party's contests. Some candidates lack the resources to compete, while others withdraw due to the financial demands of money-driven elections. Fuseini also linked excessive campaign spending to corruption, arguing that candidates who spend heavily expect to recoup their investment, which fuels corruption on a national scale.