The election of Kwadwo Fosu Boadu (popularly known as Kojo Bamba) as First National Vice Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) ignited fierce public debate across Ghana.
To many citizens, the news that an individual with a prior judicial conviction had won a senior executive role within a major political party was met with immediate public concern. Critics quickly asserted that electing an ex-convict violates the fundamental laws of the country.
This public reaction forces a critical constitutional question: Does a criminal conviction automatically disqualify an individual from contesting or holding an executive position in a Ghanaian political party?
While popular instinct often views any prior conviction as an absolute moral bar to public leadership, constitutional law demands strict textual analysis over normative sentiment.
BrakoPowers Law Hub deconstructs the legal framework governing internal party eligibility under the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574), and internal party regulations, such as Article 3(C)(1) of the NPP Constitution.
1. The Statutory Bridge: Linking Party Leadership to Parliamentary Qualifications
The starting point for assessing whether any candidate can lawfully serve as a party executive is Article 55(8) of the 1992 Constitution:
“A political party shall not have as a founding member, leader, or member of its executive, a person who is not qualified to be elected as a Member of Parliament or to hold any other public office.”
This requirement is mirrored in Section 7 of the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574) and reinforced across internal party charters.
Through this statutory link, the legal capacity to hold a national, regional, or constituency executive office in a political party is tied directly to the statutory qualifications required to stand for election to the Parliament of Ghana.
2. Deconstructing Disqualification: The Statutory Taxonomy of Article 94(2)(c)
To evaluate whether a prior conviction creates a legal bar, the law directs us to Article 94(2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution, which outlines the specific criminal grounds that disqualify a person from serving as an MP.
Crucially, the Constitution does not establish a blanket prohibition against individuals with criminal records. Instead, Article 94(2)(c) enumerates specific categories of criminal offences that trigger disqualification:
(a) High Crimes & State Security: Treason, high treason, high crime, or offences directly endangering State security.
(b) Integrity & Morality Offences: Offences involving fraud, dishonesty, or moral turpitude.
(c) Severe Statutory Offences: Serious offences punishable by death or a custodial sentence of 10 years or more.
(d) Electoral Offences: Criminal acts created by law relating directly to public elections in Ghana.
3. The Canons of Interpretation: Noscitur a Sociis, Moral Turpitude, and State Security
In constitutional jurisprudence, determining whether an offence falls under “moral turpitude” or “security of the State” relies on the canon of statutory interpretation known as noscitur a sociis (meaning “a word is known by the company it keeps”). Under this rule, courts interpret ambiguous or broad statutory terms by examining the surrounding words in the provision.
Evaluating “Moral Turpitude”
In Article 94(2)(c), the term “moral turpitude” sits alongside “treason, high crime, fraud,” and “dishonesty”. Applying noscitur a sociis, the expression must be construed as referring strictly to offences of a similar gravity—acts involving baseness, vileness, or intrinsic depravity (such as embezzlement, perjury, bribery, or sexual assault).
Not every statutory offence or misdemeanour meets this high threshold. Public order infractions, summary offences, court fines, or simple statutory breaches do not share the character of fraud or dishonesty and thus do not constitute crimes of moral turpitude.
Evaluating “Security of the State”
Similarly, the phrase “offences involving the security of the State” sits alongside high constitutional offences like treason and high crime. Applying noscitur a sociis, state security offences refer to acts directed against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or foundational authority of the Republic (such as espionage, treasonable felony, subversion, or insurgency).
A localised breach of public order, a court disruption, or a misdemeanour riot, while unlawful and punishable under criminal law, does not equate to an offence endangering the security of the nation or state security under Article 94(2)(c).
4. Internal Alignment: Article 3(C)(1) of the NPP Constitution
The constitutional threshold under Article 94(2)(c) is directly mirrored in the governing rules of major political parties in Ghana. For instance, Article 3(C)(1)(a) of the NPP Constitution provides:
“A member shall be disqualified from holding any office or contesting any election in the Party if he or she:
(a) Has been convicted and/or sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction in respect of any offence involving high treason, or an offence involving the security of the State, dishonesty, fraud or moral turpitude, unless a period of ten years has elapsed after the serving of the sentence or he or she has been granted a full pardon…”
Because internal party rules explicitly restrict disqualification to specific categories of serious crimes, a party cannot lawfully disqualify a candidate whose conviction falls outside those enumerated categories. Doing so would violate both the party’s own constitution and the national baseline established by Article 55(8).
5. The Analytical Framework: Evaluating Specific Convictions
When assessing whether a candidate’s prior conviction creates a legal bar, asking “Was the person convicted?” is legally incomplete. A thorough constitutional analysis requires a three-step inquiry:
(a) Was the person convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
(b) Does the conviction fall squarely within the statutory categories of Article 94(2)(c)? (Applying noscitur a sociis to evaluate whether the offence shares the character of treason, state security breaches, fraud, dishonesty, moral turpitude, an electoral crime, or an offence punishable by ten or more years in prison).
If yes, has a ten-year period elapsed since the completion of the sentence/payment of the fine, or has a presidential pardon been granted?
Applying the Test to Public Order Offences (The Kojo Bamba Case)
In the case of Kojo Bamba, official records indicate that his prior conviction and fine stemmed from the 2017 Delta Force court incidents, involving public order charges such as escaping lawful custody and rioting.
Applying the constitutional framework:
Public order misdemeanours like rioting or escaping custody do not automatically constitute crimes of fraud, dishonesty, or moral turpitude, nor do they reach the threshold of an offence involving the security of the State.
Where the sanction imposed is a fine (such as a GH¢2,400 fine) or a custodial sentence under ten years for a non-security/non-electoral crime, it does not trigger the disqualification threshold of Article 94(2)(c) or Article 3(C)(1)(a) of the NPP Constitution.
The Constitutional Statute of Limitations: Article 94(5)
Even where an individual is convicted of an offence that falls directly under Article 94(2)(c), the disqualification is generally temporary.
Under Article 94(5) of the 1992 Constitution (and mirrored in Article 3(C)(1)(a) of the NPP Constitution), the constitutional bar automatically expires once 10 years have elapsed from the date the sentence was completed or the fine was paid, or upon the granting of a presidential pardon under Article 72.
Conclusion: Textual Integrity Over Popular Emotion
The framing of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution reflects a deliberate legislative choice: to penalise serious integrity breaches, state security violations, and severe felonies while preserving a path to civic participation for individuals convicted of minor statutory infractions or misdemeanours.
While public reaction to Kojo Bamba’s election highlights deep ethical concerns among voters, a court conviction alone does not create an automatic or blanket prohibition against serving as a political party executive in Ghana. Unless a candidate’s specific conviction involves treason, state security breaches, fraud, dishonesty, moral turpitude, an electoral crime, or carries a sentence of ten or more years in prison, the candidate remains legally eligible to contest, win, and hold executive office.
Stay Informed with BrakoPowers Law Hub
At BrakoPowers Law Hub, we deliver rigorous legal analysis, public education, and authoritative constitutional commentary across Ghana.
Explore more constitutional analysis and legal breakdowns at www.brakopowers.com and follow us on social media @brakopowerslawhub.
Be First to Comment