NDC’s Internal Discipline: Mahama’s Reprimand, the Code of Conduct, and Ghana’s Political Ethics

Introduction: A Landmark in Party Self-Regulation?

In a significant development within Ghana’s political landscape, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) has publicly addressed allegations of vote-buying during its recent parliamentary primaries. The party’s leadership, through Deputy General Secretary Mustapha Gbande, has confirmed that former President John Dramani Mahama, in his capacity as the party’s 2020 presidential candidate, reprimanded Ambassador Baba Jamal for his alleged involvement. This action is framed by the NDC as a direct enforcement of its newly established code of conduct for government appointees, a measure the party describes as historic. This incident raises critical questions about internal party discipline, the efficacy of political party codes of ethics, and the broader fight against vote-buying and delegate inducement in Ghanaian democracy. This analysis will unpack the NDC’s position, examine the legal and constitutional boundaries of party authority, and assess the potential impact of this “drastic position” on the conduct of future elections and the behavior of other political entities.

Key Points: Understanding the NDC’s Stance

• Confirmed Reprimand: The NDC has officially confirmed that former President John Mahama reprimanded Ambassador Baba Jamal, a senior government appointee, over his alleged role in distributing inducements during the February 7, 2024, parliamentary primaries.
• Code of Conduct Enforcement: The party asserts this reprimand is a direct application of its new “reset agenda” and the pioneering code of conduct for government appointees, positioning it as a first in Ghana’s political history.
• Scope of Authority: The NDC clarifies its disciplinary powers are limited to its internal constitution. It states that while the actions constituted “inappropriate conduct,” they did not breach the party’s constitution in a way that would mandate harsher, specified penalties.
• Precedent vs. Punishment: The party argues that the very act of publicly investigating and reprimanding a senior figure is a powerful deterrent and a significant step, setting a precedent more valuable than specific sanctions in this instance.
• Call to Others: The NDC uses this episode to challenge other political parties, particularly the New Patriotic Party (NPP), to adopt similar robust internal mechanisms to combat electoral misconduct.

Background: The Primaries, Allegations, and the “Reset Agenda”

The February 7th Parliamentary Primaries

The National Democratic Congress held its nationwide parliamentary primaries on Saturday, February 7, 2024, to elect its candidates for the December 2024 general elections. As is common in many delegate-based selection systems, reports and allegations swiftly emerged that some aspirants had engaged in vote-buying, distributing items such as money, television sets, and other gifts to delegates to secure their votes.

The Investigative Committee

In response to the widespread allegations, the NDC’s leadership constituted an internal investigative committee. Its mandate was to examine the claims and recommend appropriate actions. The committee’s work brought the issue to a head, leading to the identification of specific individuals, including Baba Jamal, who was then serving as Ghana’s Ambassador to Guinea.

The “Reset Agenda” and the Code of Conduct

Central to the NDC’s narrative is the concept of a “reset agenda.” This refers to a set of reforms and ethical standards championed by John Dramani Mahama, aimed at distinguishing his leadership and the party from perceived past malpractices. A cornerstone of this agenda is the formulation and implementation of a formal code of conduct for government appointees. The party claims this code is the first of its kind to be systematically applied by a political party in Ghana, explicitly outlining expected behavior for officials holding state positions. The reprimand of Baba Jamal is presented as the inaugural enforcement of this new regulatory framework.

Analysis: Limits of Power, Political Messaging, and Democratic Implications

The Architecture of Internal Discipline

Mustapha Gbande’s explanation reveals a nuanced understanding of a political party’s disciplinary reach. He draws a clear distinction between inappropriate conduct and a constitutional breach as defined in the NDC’s constitution. The party’s ability to punish is strictly confined to the latter. If an act, however troubling, is not explicitly codified as a punishable offense in the party’s constitution, the leadership’s options are constrained. This is a critical legal and organizational point. The reprimand, therefore, is framed not as a formal sanction from a disciplinary committee but as a directive from the party’s presidential candidate, operating under the moral authority of the new code of conduct. This allows the party to take a “drastic position” without overstepping its constitutionally defined procedural boundaries.

A “Drastic Position” or a Strategic Ambiguity?

The NDC’s stance can be interpreted in two ways. On one hand, publicly reprimanding a senior government appointee and ambassador is a rare and potent act. It signals zero tolerance and uses the individual’s stature to amplify the deterrent message. On the other hand, the avoidance of formal, predefined sanctions (like suspension or expulsion) based on constitutional gaps could be seen as a lack of teeth. Critics might argue it allows for a “soft” outcome for a serious offense. The party counters that the public exposure and political shame are themselves severe punishments in the court of public opinion and that setting this precedent is more valuable than a single punitive measure.

The Precedent-Setting Challenge

Gbande explicitly turns the spotlight on other parties, especially the governing New Patriotic Party (NPP). The underlying argument is that the NDC has established a new benchmark for internal accountability. By characterizing its actions as historic (“It hasn’t happened in the history of this country”), it forces a comparative question: why have similar allegations within the NPP not been met with equally public and high-level reprimands? This is a powerful political tactic, framing the NDC as the reformer and implicitly painting opponents as permissive of malpractice. The success of this messaging depends on whether independent observers and the electorate perceive the NDC’s action as substantive or merely symbolic.

Practical Advice: For Political Parties, Candidates, and Citizens

For Political Parties Seeking Credible Self-Regulation

1. Codify Clearly: A code of conduct must be specific. It should explicitly define prohibited acts (e.g., offering/accepting money, gifts, or favors for delegate support), the investigation process, and a graduated scale of sanctions (reprimand, suspension, disqualification, expulsion). Ambiguity weakens enforcement.
2. Establish Independent Panels: Disciplinary committees should be perceived as independent of the main factional battles within a party. Including respected, non-partisan figures (e.g., retired judges, civil society leaders) can enhance legitimacy.
3. Communicate Transparently: Following an investigation, publish a summary report (respecting privacy where necessary) outlining the findings, the breached rules, and the rationale for the sanction. Secrecy breeds suspicion.
4. Train Aspirants and Delegates: Proactive education on the code of conduct and the legal implications of vote-buying (under Ghana’s Criminal Code and Representation of the People’s Act) is essential. Make the rules known before elections, not after.

For Aspiring Candidates and Party Appointees

Understand that your actions during primaries are now under a microscope, especially if you hold or seek a government position. The line between “campaign generosity” and “criminal inducement” is thin and increasingly policed by both party ethics and state law. The NDC’s action demonstrates that seniority offers no shield from public censure by party leadership. Document all campaign expenditures meticulously and ensure they comply with both party guidelines and campaign finance laws.

For Citizens, Journalists, and Civil Society

• Scrutinize the Process: Look beyond the headline “reprimand.” Ask: Was there a fair hearing? Is the party’s constitution clear on this offense? Is the sanction proportionate and consistently applied?
• Demote Consistency: Hold all political parties to the same standard. The NDC’s claim of a historic first must be tested against the records of the NPP, CPP, and others. Document and compare cases.
• Link to State Law: Remember that vote-buying is not just a party offense; it is a crime under Ghanaian law (e.g., Section 13 of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1992). Party internal processes do not preclude investigation and prosecution by state institutions like the Office of the Special Prosecutor or the Electoral Commission.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions

Q1: Was Baba Jamal formally expelled from the NDC or his ambassadorial post?

A: Based on the NDC’s public statements, no. The action taken was a “reprimand” from former President Mahama, the party’s presidential candidate. There is no mention of formal party disciplinary committee proceedings or removal from the ambassadorial post, which is a state appointment made by the President. The reprimand is framed as an ethical directive under the party’s new code for appointees.

Q2: Does the NDC’s code of conduct have the force of law?

A: No. It is an internal party regulation. Its “force” is disciplinary within the party (e.g., denying a aspirant the chance to run on the party’s ticket). It does not replace national laws. However, if the conduct it prohibits also violates Ghanaian statutes (like bribery or undue influence), state law enforcement agencies can still investigate and prosecute independently.

Q3: Why can’t the NDC punish others implicated if they know misconduct occurred?

A: The NDC, through its Secretary, explains its constitutional limitations. It states its constitution does not explicitly define the specific allegations (distributing TVs, money) as a punishable offense warranting a specific sanction like expulsion. Therefore, while it deems the conduct “inappropriate,” it claims it cannot invent a punishment not provided for in its governing document without assuming the role of a state institution, which it is not.

Q4: Is this really the first time a Ghanaian political party has had a code of conduct for appointees?

A: The NDC claims it is the first to formally establish and enforce such a code in this specific manner. Many parties have ethical guidelines, but the NDC positions its “reset agenda” code as a unique, written framework directly tied to the conduct of government officials. Verifying this as an absolute historical first would require examining the internal documents and historical practices of all registered parties since 1992.

Q5: What are the potential legal implications for Baba Jamal or other aspirants?

A: The party’s internal reprimand does not shield individuals from potential criminal liability. The act of giving or accepting money or gifts to influence a delegate’s vote can constitute bribery and undue influence under Ghana’s criminal law. The matter could, in theory, be referred by the NDC or any citizen to the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) or the Electoral Commission for investigation. The OSP has a mandate to investigate corruption-related offenses involving public officers and politically exposed persons.

Conclusion: A Test of Genuine Reform

The NDC’s public handling of the Baba Jamal allegation is a pivotal moment for its self-proclaimed “reset agenda.” It demonstrates a willingness to confront internal malpractice at a high level, a move that could bolster its image as a party committed to ethical reform. However, the ultimate test lies in implementation. The credibility of the new code of conduct will depend on its consistent application to all levels of the party, the clarity of its rules, and its ability to withstand future scandals. The party’s argument that its constitutional limits restrict harsher punishments is a valid organizational point but also places the onus on it to amend its constitution to clearly address modern forms of electoral corruption. For Ghana’s democracy, the most significant outcome would be if this incident triggers a healthy competitive emulation, pushing all political parties to strengthen their internal democracies and enforce strict codes against vote-buying. The real victory will not be a single reprimand, but the establishment of a new, irreversible norm where inducements in primaries are systematically exposed and punished, restoring some integrity to the candidate selection process that underpins the nation’s elections.

Sources and Further Reading

• Original Broadcast: PM Express on JoyNews (Ghana). The statements by Mustapha Gbande form the primary basis for this report. (Note: Access to the original broadcast segment is required for direct quotation verification).
• National Democratic Congress (NDC) Official Communications. Any public statements or released documents regarding the “reset agenda” and the code of conduct for appointees.
• Constitution of the National Democratic Congress. The relevant sections on party discipline and misconduct would be necessary to verify the claims about constitutional limitations.
• Representation of the People’s Act, 1992 (PNDCL 284). Specifically, sections on corrupt practices and undue influence at elections.
• Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959). For understanding the mandate of the OSP regarding politically exposed persons.
• Electoral Commission of Ghana. Guidelines and public positions on the conduct of political parties and primaries.