Adzome appeals disqualification from NDC NEC race, challenges vetting committee decision

A Volta Regional aspirant for the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Hon. Emmanuel Ewoenam Yao Adzome, has formally appealed against the decision of the Vetting Committee disqualifying him from contesting for the position of NEC Member in the 2026 National Elections of the Party.

Hon. Adzome is the Assembly Member for the Ho Central Electoral Area and Branch Secretary of Kabore Branch A. In his appeal addressed to the Chairperson of the National Elections Appeals Committee through the National Executive Committee, and copied to the National Chairman, General Secretary and National Elections Director, he invoked Section 18.1 of the 2026 Guidelines for the Elections of NDC Party Executives at All Levels, challenging the decision on grounds relating to the interpretation and application of the Party’s constitutional provisions, procedural fairness, and consistency in the administration of the electoral guidelines.

Hon. Adzome, a committed and active member of the NDC with a record of political participation, organisational service and grassroots mobilisation, stated that he previously contested the same NEC position about four years ago, during which he successfully underwent vetting and was cleared by a duly constituted Vetting Committee to contest, although he was unsuccessful in that election.

He listed his political and organisational experience as including serving as Assembly Member for the Ho Central Electoral Area, Branch Secretary of Kabore Branch A, former TEIN Communication Officer at Ho Technical University, former TEIN Organiser at All Nations University, and active participation in grassroots political mobilisation, party organisation, political communication and promotion of the ideals of the NDC.

In his first ground of appeal, Hon. Adzome questioned the constitutional basis and enforceability of the additional qualification requirements under Section 9.0 of the 2026 Elections Guidelines, particularly the requirements relating to four years of executive experience or service in an NDC Government and four years of active Party membership. He contended that while the Guidelines were made pursuant to Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 36 and 40 of the Party Constitution, any additional eligibility restrictions must be supported by a clear constitutional mandate and introduced through the appropriate procedures, consistent with Articles 22, 36 and 40.

His second ground centred on what he described as the misinterpretation of the disjunctive requirement under Section 9.0(iii), which provides that an aspirant should have held an executive position within the Party for a minimum of four years OR must have served in an NDC Government. He argued that the word “OR” creates alternative routes to satisfy the requirement, and that an aspirant who satisfies either alternative should not be required to fulfil both simultaneously, while also asking for clarification on the definition of executive position and service in an NDC Government, including whether his TEIN leadership and other service were properly considered.

In his third ground, Hon. Adzome raised concerns about the fair, reasonable and consistent interpretation of the Guidelines, drawing attention to aspirants including Karim Ewura Adams, Antonio Edem Asinyo, Anas Suwari Suallah and Nana Otu Darko, who he said had been cleared to contest for Deputy National Communication Officer and Deputy National Youth Organiser positions despite, to his knowledge, not having held a full four-year executive position at constituency level or above. He stressed that he was not seeking their disqualification, but equal and fair consideration for all aspirants under Section 9.0, which is headed “Qualification to Contest for National Positions.”

He further relied on his previous vetting clearance for the same position about four years ago, arguing that although previous clearance does not automatically confer permanent eligibility, it is a relevant consideration in examining the consistency of the Party’s interpretation of the qualification requirements. He therefore asked the Appeals Committee to examine whether the provisions applicable to his previous clearance had materially changed and whether any changes were validly introduced and properly applied.

In his fifth ground, Hon. Adzome complained about failure to provide adequate reasons and the requirement of procedural fairness, arguing that for his right of appeal under Section 18.1 to be meaningful, he must be sufficiently informed of the grounds of the adverse decision. He therefore requested the Committee to obtain and examine the complete findings and reasons of the Vetting Committee and to establish whether all relevant documents, records of Party service, political experience and other evidence submitted during his vetting were adequately considered.

Hon. Adzome prayed the Appeals Committee to admit and uphold his appeal, review and set aside the Vetting Committee’s decision, determine the constitutional authority for the additional requirements under Section 9.0, clarify Section 9.0(iii), direct a review of his evidence, examine consistency in the application of Section 9.0 to other aspirants, and restore and approve his candidature, or in the alternative, refer him for a fresh and impartial vetting. He emphasised that his appeal is not intended to undermine the Vetting Committee or the Party’s electoral process, but is a genuine, constitutionally grounded request for review, and urged the Committee to determine the appeal within the period prescribed under Section 18.2 of the 2026 Elections Guidelines, in the interest of justice, fairness and internal Party democracy.