The National Council of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) stands accused of flagrant constitutional breaches following its June 17, 2025 directive, an action widely decried as a “legal misadventure laced with political mischief.”
According to Charles McCarthy, a prominent Political Communication Strategist, the Council’s move undermines the very foundational document it swore to uphold, raising serious questions about the party’s commitment to internal democracy and rule of law.
McCarthy’s incisive analysis, exclusively obtained by FrontPage Africa, meticulously dissects the constitutional flaws, leaving no room for defense of the Council’s controversial stance.
Violation of Article 10(2): Annual Conference Cannot Precede Regional Conferences
At the heart of the controversy is the Council’s proposed National Annual Delegates Conference in July 2025.
Article 10(2) of the NPP Constitution unequivocally states: “The National Annual Delegates Conference shall meet once every year, at least four (4) weeks after the last of the Regional Annual Delegates Conferences.”
McCarthy asserts, “This is not a procedural lapse—it is a brazen constitutional defiance.”
He highlights that the Council’s plan disregards the mandatory sequencing of conferences, bypassing not only Regional Conferences but also Constituency Delegates Conferences, which are fundamental precursors.
“The timelines are not discretionary; they are sequenced and mandatory,” he stressed, adding that “by bypassing the hierarchy of conferences, the Council attempts to manufacture legitimacy where the Constitution demands an earned process.”
Another critical violation, according to McCarthy, is the breach of Article 19, which governs constitutional amendments.
This article mandates that “No amendment shall be made unless the General Secretary has circulated the proposed amendment to every Regional and Constituency office at least one (1) month before the National Annual Delegates Conference.”
“Here’s the legal reality,” McCarthy states, “no known circular or document has been sent to all 276 Constituency and Regional offices regarding any proposed amendment.”
He points out that the General Secretary, Justin Frimpong Koduah, a lawyer by training, is yet to fulfill this obligation. “Yet the Council pretends to act with legal authority,” he noted.
This, McCarthy argues, renders any proposal for constitutional amendment—including the scheduling of the flagbearer election or any deviation from the constitutional electoral calendar—”null and void ab initio.”
McCarthy further emphasizes that the NPP Constitution does not grant the National Council the authority to amend the party’s supreme law.
He cites Article 9(1): “There shall be a National Council which, subject to the decisions of the National Annual Delegates Conference, shall direct the affairs of the party in between meetings of the National Annual Delegates Conference…”
The operative phrase, “subject to the decisions of the National Annual Delegates Conference,” is not ornamental, McCarthy insists. “It confirms that the Council is subordinate, not sovereign.”
He contends that the Council cannot “propose election dates independent of a duly constituted Delegates Conference,” nor can it “pre-emptively fix a flagbearer contest date (January 31, 2026) in the absence of approval from the Annual Delegates Conference.”
He condemned the Council’s actions as a “power grab, incompatible with the internal rule of law the party claims to uphold.”
McCarthy also dismisses the Council’s potential reliance on “Notice of Poll” mechanisms, typically invoked after constitutional processes have been validated. “No poll can be set in motion in anticipation of approval.
Approvals must precede action,” he asserted, labelling anything else as “administrative fiction, not law.”
Beyond the letter of the law, McCarthy suggests that the Council’s actions betray a deeper, more sinister intent.
He argues that the sequence of events, the stealth of the Council’s decisions, and the absence of broad consultation strongly suggest “a deliberate ploy to skew the process in favour of a preferred candidate.”
He described the Council’s action as “mischievous in intent, capricious in method, [and] illegitimate in effect.”
Addressing potential defenses of “urgent necessity” or “administrative discretion,” McCarthy is unequivocal: “There is no ‘doctrine of necessity’ clause in the NPP Constitution allowing for shortcuts.”
He stressed that “the supremacy of the Delegates Conference cannot be suspended in favour of expediency.”
He reminded observers that precedents in 2014, 2018, and 2022 consistently showed that proper sequencing was always followed. “Where the Constitution speaks clearly, no Council can reinterpret it on whim,” he concluded.
The NPP National Council’s June 17, 2025 directive, if not reversed, risks becoming a “permanent scar on the NPP’s democratic credentials and an invitation to chaos within its ranks.”
McCarthy’s analysis presents a stark choice for the party: “The party must either return to constitutional order or forfeit its moral right to govern a constitutional republic.”
The ball, it seems, is now firmly in the court of the NPP leadership.