Vote-Buying Allegations in Ayawaso East: A Call for OSP Intervention and Democratic Integrity

The integrity of Ghana’s democratic process is once again under scrutiny following serious allegations of vote-buying during the National Democratic Congress (NDC) parliamentary primaries in the Ayawaso East Constituency on February 7, 2026. The incident has sparked a significant political controversy, with pollster and governance analyst Mussa Dankwah publicly urging President John Dramani Mahama to refer the matter to the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). This action underscores the critical tension between political benevolence and electoral corruption, a challenge that tests the nation’s commitment to clean governance and the rule of law. This article provides a comprehensive, SEO-optimized analysis of the event, its background, legal ramifications, and practical implications for Ghana’s political ecosystem.

Introduction: The Ayawaso East Primaries and a National Dilemma

The February 7, 2026, NDC parliamentary primaries in Ayawaso East concluded with a narrow victory for Baba Jamal, Ghana’s High Commissioner to Nigeria, who secured 431 votes (45%) against his closest rival, Hajia Amina Adam, who garnered 399 votes (41%). However, the electoral outcome was immediately overshadowed by widespread reports and visual evidence suggesting that Baba Jamal’s campaign distributed material goods, specifically 32-inch Nanco television sets and boiled eggs, to delegates prior to and during the voting process. This act, framed by the candidate as “benevolence” and longstanding personal generosity, has been categorically labeled as classic vote-buying or electoral bribery by watchdogs like Mussa Dankwah of Global InfoAnalytics. The central question now transcends the constituency: how will Ghana’s highest institutions respond to an alleged breach of electoral law that strikes at the heart of free and fair internal party democracy? The call to refer the incident to the OSP (Office of the Special Prosecutor) represents a pivotal test for the “reset agenda” promised by the current administration and the operational independence of Ghana’s anti-corruption architecture.

Key Points: A Summary of the Controversy

• Alleged Act: The campaign team of Baba Jamal, a serving Ghanaian diplomat and NDC parliamentary aspirant, distributed television sets and food items (boiled eggs) to delegates in Ayawaso East during the party’s primaries.
• Official Result: Baba Jamal won the primary with 431 votes (45%) against Hajia Amina Adam’s 399 votes (41%).
• Key Call to Action: Mussa Dankwah, Executive Director of Global InfoAnalytics, insists the matter must be referred to the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) for criminal investigation, arguing administrative party sanctions are insufficient.
• Government Response: President John Dramani Mahama has recalled Baba Jamal from his post as High Commissioner to Nigeria pending investigations, citing his status as a “serving public officer” involved in the allegations.
• Candidate’s Defense: Baba Jamal admits to the distribution but denies corrupt intent, framing it as personal benevolence, hospitality, and a continuation of his tradition of supporting people, separate from influencing votes.
• NDC’s Stance: The party’s General Secretary has announced internal investigations into the allegations, a parallel track to potential criminal probes.
• Legal Context: The alleged actions potentially contravene Ghana’s electoral laws, specifically provisions against bribery and undue influence in elections, which apply to internal party primaries as recognized electoral events.

Background: Ghana’s Electoral Landscape and the OSP

The Significance of Internal Party Primaries

In Ghana’s First-Past-the-Post system, internal party primaries are not mere internal affairs; they are de facto preliminary elections that determine who represents a party in the national contest. The integrity of these primaries is therefore inseparable from the integrity of the general election. The Ayawaso East constituency, an urban area within the Greater Accra Region, is a significant political battleground. Allegations of vote-buying here set a dangerous precedent and erode public trust in the candidate selection process.

The Mandate of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP)

Established under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), the OSP is an independent specialized agency with the exclusive mandate to investigate and prosecute specific categories of corruption and corruption-related offences. Its jurisdiction includes offences involving public officers and politically exposed persons. The OSP’s independence is designed to insulate it from political interference, making it the appropriate body for allegations that involve a serving public officer (like a High Commissioner) in a potentially criminal electoral act. A referral from the President, while not strictly required for the OSP to act, carries significant symbolic and procedural weight, signaling the executive’s commitment to allowing an independent legal process.

Analysis: Deconstructing the Allegations and Responses

The Act: Defining Vote-Buying in Ghanaian Law

Ghana’s primary electoral law, the Representation of the People Act, 1992 (PNDCL 284), and the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), prohibit bribery and undue influence. Section 150 of the Criminal Offences Act defines bribery at elections broadly. It is an offence for a person to give, lend, or agree to give or lend any money or valuable consideration to any voter or person with intent to influence their vote. The law does not require proof that the gift *actually* influenced the vote, but that it was given with that corrupt intent. The distribution of televisions and food to delegates—who are the voters in this primary—falls squarely within the ambit of “valuable consideration.” The timing, immediately before or during voting, strongly suggests an intent to influence, which is the core legal element.

The Defense: “Benevolence” vs. “Bribery”

Baba Jamal’s defense hinges on distinguishing between general philanthropy and targeted inducement. His argument—”It is not the gift; it is allowing that gift to influence your vote that makes it wrong”—attempts to shift moral and legal responsibility onto the delegate. However, this is a misreading of the law. The corrupt intent resides with the giver at the time of giving. If the gift is given because a person is a delegate about to vote, and the gift is of a nature that could reasonably be seen as an incentive, the act constitutes bribery regardless of the delegate’s subsequent internal reasoning. His claim of a “long-standing personal follow[ing] of supporting people” is a factual assertion that would be investigated. Were these televisions distributed randomly to community members, or specifically to known delegates on the eve of the primary? The latter scenario would dismantle the benevolence defense.

The Political Fallout and the “Reset Agenda”

Mussa Dankwah’s statement links the handling of this single incident to the credibility of the entire government’s anti-corruption “reset agenda.” This is a potent political argument. If the administration, which came to power on a platform of reform, treats alleged vote-buying by a prominent diplomat from the ruling party with administrative wrist-slapping rather than criminal referral, it creates a perception of selective justice and impunity. The President’s recall of Baba Jamal is a significant administrative step, acknowledging the gravity of the situation and removing a diplomat from post. However, Dankwah and others argue that recall is insufficient; criminal investigation is necessary to deter future occurrences and affirm that no one is above the law. The NDC’s parallel internal investigation is a standard party procedure but lacks the punitive power of the state and is perceived by many as potentially less impartial.

Legal Implications for a Serving Public Officer

Baba Jamal’s status as a High Commissioner (an Ambassador-grade position) elevates the legal and diplomatic stakes. As a serving public officer, he is bound by higher standards of conduct and specific codes of conduct (e.g., the 1992 Constitution, the Public Officers (Disciplinary) Code). His alleged actions could constitute misconduct in public office, a separate offence. Furthermore, if the OSP investigation proceeds, it would scrutinize whether his diplomatic status or the resources used for the gifts involved state funds or facilities, which would compound the offences. The recall by President Mahama, as the appointing authority, is a preliminary administrative action that preserves the integrity of the foreign service while investigations continue.

Practical Advice: Navigating the Aftermath

For the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP)

Upon receiving a referral (or acting on its own initiative), the OSP should: 1) Secure and analyze all evidence, including social media posts, delegate lists, transaction records for the purchase of televisions, and witness statements; 2) Determine the source of funding for the gifts; 3) Interview the delegates who received items to establish context and intent; 4) Issue a public statement on whether a formal investigation is opened to manage public expectations. The OSP must demonstrate impartiality, speed, and transparency to maintain public confidence.

For the National Democratic Congress (NDC)

The NDC must conduct its internal investigation with transparency. It should publish the terms of reference, the committee members, and a timeline. The party must be prepared to act decisively if its findings align with the allegations—potential sanctions include disqualification from future primaries or expulsion. The party’s long-term health depends on projecting a zero-tolerance stance towards vote-buying to attract credible candidates and reassure its grassroots.

For Political Candidates and Campaign Teams

This incident serves as a stark warning. Campaigns must implement clear compliance guidelines. The line between “hospitality” (e.g., providing refreshments at a rally) and “inducement” (giving gifts of significant value to targeted voters/delegates) must be understood and respected. Legal counsel should be consulted on all campaign activities involving the distribution of goods or money. The reputational and legal risks of crossing this line are now demonstrably severe.

For Delegate-Voters and the Electorate

Delegates must recognize that accepting valuable gifts with the understanding that it is for their vote makes them complicit in electoral bribery. They have a civic duty to reject such inducements and vote based on policy, competence, and integrity. The electorate at large should use this incident to demand higher standards from all aspirants and support candidates who run issue-based campaigns.

For Civil Society and Media

Watchdog groups should monitor the OSP’s actions closely and advocate for a thorough investigation. The media must continue to report factually, avoiding sensationalism, while explaining the legal principles at stake. Investigative journalism into the funding of such gifts is a valuable public service.

FAQ: Common Questions About the Ayawaso East Incident

Is giving gifts to voters always illegal in Ghana?

No. The law distinguishes between trivial items of nominal value (e.g., a pen, a small snack at an open event) and gifts of significant value given with the intent to influence a vote. Distributing televisions is clearly not trivial. The context, timing, value, and target of the gift are all determinative factors.

Why does Mussa Dankwah want the OSP involved instead of just the NDC’s internal investigation?

Because the NDC’s investigation is a private party matter with limited sanctions (like disqualification). The OSP is a state prosecutorial body that can investigate and prosecute *criminal offences* under Ghanaian law. Dankwah argues that vote-buying is a crime against the state and democratic process, not merely a party disciplinary issue, and thus requires the power of criminal law.

What could happen to Baba Jamal if the OSP finds evidence of a crime?

If the OSP investigates and believes there is a prima facie case, it can prosecute Baba Jamal in court. If convicted of electoral bribery, penalties under Ghanaian law can include fines and imprisonment. Additionally, a criminal conviction would almost certainly lead to his permanent removal from the NDC and the end of his diplomatic and political career.

Does the President’s recall of Baba Jamal mean he is guilty?

No. A recall is an administrative action, not a legal judgment of guilt. It is a precautionary measure to remove a public officer from a sensitive post while serious allegations are investigated, thereby protecting the integrity of the foreign service and the government’s image. It does not prejudice any future criminal or disciplinary proceedings.

How common is vote-buying in Ghanaian elections?

It is a persistent and widely acknowledged challenge in Ghana’s electoral politics, affecting both national and internal party elections. Studies by institutions like the Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana) and the Electoral Commission have consistently highlighted monetary and material inducements as a major concern. This incident is notable because of the high profile of the candidate and the explicit call for a criminal probe by a prominent analyst.

Conclusion: A Critical Test for Democratic Institutions

The Ayawaso East vote-buying allegations are more than a local party squabble; they are a litmus test for Ghana’s democratic resilience. The visible distribution of televisions to delegates represents a brazen challenge to the principle of “one member, one vote.” Mussa Dankwah’s demand to refer the incident to the OSP places the onus on President Mahama’s administration to prove that its anti-corruption rhetoric translates into action, even against its own party members. While Baba Jamal’s recall is a necessary first step, the true measure will be the OSP’s willingness and ability to conduct an independent, fearless investigation that follows the evidence, regardless of political stature. For the NDC, it is an opportunity to reform its internal democracy from within. For Ghanaian voters, it is a moment to reaffirm that electoral outcomes must be decided by ideas and leadership, not by the size of a television screen. The path chosen in response to this incident will either fortify or further undermine the integrity of Ghana’s electoral system and its global reputation as a beacon of democracy in West Africa.

Sources

• Life Pulse Daily. (2026, February 8). Vote-buying allegations: Refer Ayawaso East incident to OSP — Mussa Dankwah tells Mahama. [Original Article].
• Republic of Ghana. (1992). The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
• Republic of Ghana. (2017). Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959).
• Republic of Ghana. (1992). Representation of the People Act, 1992 (PNDCL 284).
• Republic of Ghana. (1960). Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).
• Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). (n.d.). Mandate and Functions. Retrieved from https://www.osp.gov.gh.
• Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana). Various reports on electoral integrity and vote-buying in Ghana.
• Electoral Commission of Ghana