The New Patriotic Party and the party's vetting committee wish to state that they are satisfied that no leakage took place in respect of Mr Kyerematen's vetting or that of the Vice President or any other aspirant.
The party also wants to emphasise to all members, supporters and sympathisers that its commitment to democracy, both internal and national, remains inviolable and expects Ghanaian voters to take due note and continue to repose their trust in it.
This was contained in a statement issued in connection with public reaction to how the vetting of the party's presidential aspirants, especially those of Mr Alan Kyeremanten and the Vice-President Alhaji Aliu Mahama were conducted.
The statement said the NPP was unhappy about the controversies that had dominated the national media in respect of the vetting of the presidential aspirants.
“The party considers it unfortunate and regrettable that a situation arose whereby the vice-president went to the old party headquarters to be vetted at a time when the Vetting Committee had decided to postpone its sitting for that day, with prior notice to all concerned,” it said.
The party, the statement said, wanted to assure all aspirants and the general public that the Vetting Committee comprised men and women of proven integrity.
“They are all dedicated to furthering the internal democratic credentials of the NPP and will not, therefore, knowingly engage in acts that will jeopardise these credentials of the party, “ it said.
The statement said the NPP wanted to clarify the role and functions of the Vetting Committee in its organisational structure as a guide to the aspirants, their campaign teams and all stakeholders to clear the air and forestall any future controversy.
“The party's constitution defines who qualifies to contest for nomination as the party's flag bearer.
Article 12 (4) states that “ No member shall be entitled to nomination as the party's presidential candidate unless he or she:
• is a known and active member of at least five years;
• is of good character;
• is otherwise of good standing;
• has paid the prescribed fee for Presidential aspirants by the deadline set by the National Executive Committee;
• is found to be qualified to be a Presidential candidate by the Vetting Committee
• has signed the "Undertaking for Presidential Aspirants" and
• the Members nomination has been endorsed in writing by at least 100 members in good standing, 10 from each region".
Article 12 (5) states: "It shall be the obligation of the member seeking nomination as the party's presidential candidate to satisfy the National Executive Committee that the conditions stipulated in Article 12 (4) have been fulfilled and any application which does not comply with these conditions shall be rejected".
All applications are forwarded to the Vetting Committee, one of the committees set up under Article 9 of the party's constitution and operating under the national council
Its functions are set out in full in Article and for the purpose of this clarification, the following are expected.
Article 9 C. f. i states: "The Vetting Committee shall examine and vet the candidature of every aspirant for the Presidential nomination of the party to ensure that such person qualifies to contest for the office of President of the Republic".
Article 9 C.f. III): "The Vetting Committee shall disallow the candidature of any aspirant when it finds that such aspirant does not qualify to be a presidential candidate.
It shall submit such finding in writing to the National Executive Committee, with a copy to the aspirant".
Article 9 C.f.iv): "An aspirant who is dissatisfied with such a finding may appeal against it to the National Executive Committee within 48 hours of receipt of notice of the finding by filing an appeal in writing with the General Secretary.
The National Executive Committee shall give its decision within seven days of receipt of the appeal. The decision of the National Executive Committee on the appeal shall be final".
According to the statement, in the past, as in the present case, the committee approached its functions with consummate fairness and impartiality.
It was, therefore, unfortunate that the postponement of a sitting led to the incident involving the vice-president.
The party stated categorically that media reports of a clash between Mr Peter Ala Adjetey and Mr Alan Kyerematen at the latter's vetting were unfounded.
Indeed, the party had established that all members of the committee, including Mr Adjetey had a cordial lunch, immediately after the morning's sitting with Mr Kyerematen and the other candidate who appeared that day.