Political Parties Must Abandon the Ritual of Sacking Members — Prof. S. Kwaku Asare

Yesterday, the General Secretary of the NPP announced that the party had initiated internal processes to expel Professor Kwabena Frimpong‑Boateng.

This is not the first time a political party has moved to expel a prominent member, and it certainly will not be the last.

Expulsions have become routine features of our political culture—bipartisan, predictable, and often triggered by dissent, criticism, or perceived indiscipline.

But familiarity is not legitimacy, and repetition is not wisdom.

The question we rarely ask—yet urgently must—is simple: What does a political party actually achieve by expelling a member?

This is not a rhetorical question. It is constitutional, democratic, and practical.

And when examined honestly, it exposes the ritual of expulsions as largely futile, legally hollow, democratically corrosive, and politically self‑defeating.

1. Political Parties Are Constitutional Institutions, Not Private Property

Political parties are not private clubs or gated associations. They are constitutional actors.

Article 55 does not merely acknowledge their existence—it embeds them into the architecture of democratic governance.

That constitutional status imposes limits.
A party cannot enjoy constitutional privileges and state protections while simultaneously claiming the unchecked autonomy of a private association.

You cannot wear the crown of constitutional relevance and demand the cloak of private absolutism.

2. Parties Exist for the Public, Not Their Executives

Article 55(11) and (12) make this clear:

• “The State shall provide fair opportunity to all political parties to present their programmes to the public…”
• “All presidential candidates shall be given the same amount of time and space on the state‑owned media…”

These provisions are about democratic choice—not internal party housekeeping.

Parties are protected because they serve the electorate, not because they serve their executives.

Once parties occupy a constitutional role, their internal practices cease to be purely private matters.

3. The Supreme Court Has Affirmed the Public‑Interest Character of Political Parties

The Supreme Court has already held that issues involving political parties are matters of public interest.

In Republic v Yebbi & Avalifo [1999–2000] 2 GLR 5, the Court ruled that the alleged theft of party funds constituted an offence against the public interest.

Why? Because political parties carry constitutional and statutory obligations—mandatory audits, financial disclosures, and public accountability.

Parties cannot claim constitutional relevance when convenient and private immunity when challenged.

4. Party Membership Is a Constitutional Right

Article 55(2) states:

“Every citizen of Ghana of voting age has the right to join a political party.”

This is a right of citizenship—not a privilege granted by party leadership.

The Constitution does not condition this right on conformity, obedience, or discipline.

5. Comparative Practice Shows the Limits of Party Power

In some countries, party membership has legal consequences. Citizens may declare party affiliation on voter rolls, and primaries may be restricted to registered members.

Yet even in those systems:

• affiliation is declared by the citizen, not conferred by the party;
• voter registration is controlled by the State;
• parties cannot erase a citizen’s affiliation;
• parties cannot bar a qualified citizen from voting in a primary.

Even where membership matters, parties do not control it.

6. The Ghanaian Reality: What Does Expulsion Actually Do?

Contrast that with Ghana’s “delegate” system:

• party affiliation is not recorded by the State;
• voting rights are independent of party membership;
• not all members vote in primaries;
• primaries are internal, voluntary arrangements—what some call the “cocoa season.”

So what does expulsion achieve?
It does not:

• remove anyone from the voter register;
• stop anyone from voting for the party;
• stop anyone from campaigning for the party;
• stop anyone from donating;
• stop anyone from persuading others;
• stop anyone from publicly identifying with the party.

At most, it removes someone from internal roles—if they hold any.

Where membership has no legal consequence, expulsion becomes pure symbolism.

7. Expulsions Are Brutum Fulmen

A party expulsion is thunder without lightning.

It cannot restrict a citizen’s political rights.

It cannot touch belief, conscience, citizenship, or the ballot.

It performs authority without exercising power.

8. Expulsions Are Politically Self‑Defeating

Elections are won by addition, not subtraction.

Parties expand coalitions—they do not shrink them.

Every expulsion narrows the tent, alienates supporters, and signals intolerance to undecided voters.

Even if lawful, expulsions are strategically unwise.

9. Discipline Has Limits—and Those Limits Matter

Parties may discipline leaders.
Executive officers may be sanctioned or removed for misconduct.

Leadership is a privilege.
But membership is a constitutional right.
Discipline ends at removal from office; it cannot extend to erasing political identity.

10. Best Practice: Democracy, Not Excommunication

Mature democracies manage disagreement through debate, elections, transparency, and accountability—not expulsions.

Expulsion is the tool of weak institutions—used when persuasion fails and legitimacy erodes.

Strong parties absorb criticism.
Weak ones attempt to banish it.
Our democracy is in its thirties. It has matured.

Our political parties must mature too.

Conclusion

Political parties must abandon the ritual of expulsions.

It is constitutionally hollow, democratically corrosive, and politically incoherent.

If expulsion cannot touch the ballot, belief, advocacy, or citizenship, then it is not discipline.

It is theatre.
The Constitution envisions political parties as instruments of democratic choice—not private cartels policing thought.

Discipline leaders where necessary. Remove officers who breach trust.

But stop pretending that political identity can be expelled.

It cannot.
PS: Yɛde post no bɛto hɔ. Yɛnyɛ comprehension consultants.

Da Yie!