The National Democratic Congress (NDC) parliamentary primary held in Ayawaso East on February 7, 2026 has reignited a fierce national debate about the persistent problem of vote buying in Ghana’s electoral process.
The contest was won by Mohammed Baba Jamal Ahmed, Ghana’s High Commissioner to Nigeria, who secured 431 votes, narrowly defeating Hajia Amina Adam, who polled 399 votes, with other contenders trailing far behind. However, the outcome has been overshadowed by widespread allegations of inducements, including the distribution of cash, 32-inch television sets, food items such as boiled eggs, and other gifts to delegates.
In response to the allegations, the NDC swiftly issued a statement condemning the reported practices and constituted a three-member investigative committee, chaired by former Minister of Information Kofi Totobi Quakyi, with a mandate to submit its findings by February 10, 2026.
The controversy has intensified calls for accountability within the party. The NDC Majority Caucus in Parliament, led by Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga, has urged the annulment of the primary results and the disqualification of any candidates found culpable, reaffirming the party’s stated commitment to restoring integrity in Ghanaian politics.
Beyond internal party actions, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has launched formal investigations into the allegations. The probe covers not only vote buying and selling but also the sources of funding used for such inducements. It further extends to similar allegations arising from the recent New Patriotic Party (NPP) presidential primary and includes inquiries into an alleged assault on an OSP officer during the service of an investigative directive linked to the Ayawaso East case.
Amid the growing controversy, President Mahama has recalled Baba Jamal from his diplomatic post, underscoring the political gravity of the matter.
These developments highlight a deeply entrenched challenge in Ghana’s democracy. Vote buying—whether through direct cash handouts, mobile money transfers, or so-called “souvenirs” such as electronics and consumables—has become increasingly normalized in both party primaries and general elections. What was once sporadic has evolved into a routine feature of political competition, distorting voter choice and undermining genuine democratic contestation.
Political campaigning in Ghana is notoriously expensive. Aspirants often rely on personal savings, loans, support from wealthy financiers and business elites seeking future influence, limited party assistance, minimal grassroots donations, and in some cases illicit funding linked to activities such as illegal mining, fraud, or procurement abuses. Research by institutions including the Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana) suggests that parliamentary campaigns can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, while presidential bids may run into tens of millions.
In the absence of robust public financing and enforceable spending limits, candidates increasingly resort to inducements to secure delegate support or voter turnout. This entrenches a cycle in which financial muscle, rather than policy vision, competence, or integrity, determines political success.
The consequences for democracy are profound. Vote buying reduces the ballot from an expression of conviction to a commodity exchanged for short-term gain. Capable candidates without access to vast resources are crowded out, weakening merit-based selection. Elected officials, having “invested” heavily in campaigns, often feel compelled to recoup costs through corrupt practices, perpetuating a wider culture of graft. Public trust erodes as citizens grow cynical about leaders perceived to be beholden to financiers rather than voters.
Ghana’s laws clearly prohibit such conduct. The Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), the Representation of the People Act, and the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574) all criminalise vote buying and selling, prescribing penalties that include fines, imprisonment, and disqualification from office. Yet enforcement has historically been weak, allowing the practice to flourish with limited consequences.
Breaking this cycle requires decisive reform. First, enforcement must be strengthened through increased resources, independence, and coordination for institutions such as the Electoral Commission, the OSP, and law enforcement agencies, enabling proactive monitoring, swift investigations, and consistent prosecutions. Publicising penalties would enhance deterrence.
Second, campaign finance regulations need urgent overhaul. Stricter disclosure of funding sources, realistic spending ceilings, expanded public financing for parties and candidates, and rigorous auditing of financial returns submitted to the Electoral Commission would reduce reliance on private wealth and elite patronage.
Third, political parties must lead by example. Internal reforms should include enforceable codes of conduct for primaries, automatic disqualification of proven offenders, and mechanisms that elevate policy debate, competence, and track record over financial inducements.
Fourth, sustained civic education is essential. Voters and delegates must be empowered to understand the long-term damage caused by accepting short-term handouts and to assess candidates based on ideas, integrity, and capacity to govern.
Finally, Ghana needs a broader cultural shift, driven by leaders across the political spectrum who model ethical conduct and reject inducement politics.
The swift condemnation and investigations following the Ayawaso East primary mark a potentially important moment of reflection for the NDC and the country as a whole. Ghana has long been celebrated for peaceful elections and democratic stability. Preserving and deepening that legacy, however, requires confronting vote buying head-on.
When leadership emerges through merit rather than money, governance improves, accountability strengthens, and the public interest prevails over private gain. The current outrage presents an opportunity to move beyond rhetoric and deliver lasting reform—ensuring that future elections reflect the will of the people, not the depth of their pockets.
