The National Chairman for the People’s National Party (PNP), Janet Nabla, has described the decision by the Supreme Court to scrap the delegates system and allow all registered party members in good standing to vote in presidential and parliamentary primaries as an interference in the work of political parties.
She noted that political parties are autonomous bodies and should not be under any form of interference from the apex court.
Speaking in an interview on Frontline on Rainbow Radio 87.5FM, she said this is an unfair outcome that will not stand the test of time.
“What the Supreme Court has done is an interference into the affairs of political parties, which is unfair. Political parties are autonomous bodies in Ghana, and the Supreme Court has no authority in directing that all party members must be allowed to vote,” she stated.
In her view, the ruling stems from a lack of understanding regarding how political parties are financially managed.
Madam Nabla argued that following this court directive will plunge political parties into a severe financial burden. She added that the apex court should have directed its mind to these concerns before arriving at its decision.
Furthermore, Madam Janet Nabla criticised the plaintiffs for pushing the agenda.
She explained that the delegates system previously allowed only members in good standing to vote, pointing out that some political party members hold dual registrations across multiple parties.
She maintained that the court should have protected the parties by permitting them to retain the existing delegates system.
She stressed that nobody forced individuals to join political parties, and as such, the court had no business issuing these directives. She insisted that political parties will act according to what they can afford rather than following the court’s mandate.
“The political parties will do what they can afford. I don’t think that this case should have gone anywhere. Why should the Supreme Court determine how political parties should be run when we have our rules and regulations? The court has made attempts in creating a dent for parties.
The Supreme Court will have its say, and the political parties will do what they can afford. Until the Supreme Court is ready to come up with money to help political parties to run their elections, the political parties will do contrary to what was directed,” she asserted.
When asked whether she believed the ruling was the best approach to tackling the monetisation of elections, Madam Janet Nabla dismissed such assertions as ignorant claims, warning that increasing the voter base in this manner sets a dangerous precedent.
By: Rainbowradioonline.com/Ghana
