The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has found itself in a legal tussle as a senior member of the party, Mr David Hoezame, has filed a writ challenging the status of the party’s National Council as presently constituted.
Mr Hoezame of Mafi Akyemfo in the Volta Region is praying an Accra High Court for an order of interim injunction restraining the NPP from going ahead to conduct elections for the selection of a presidential candidate until the final determination of the suit.
He has, therefore, urged the court to compel the NPP to follow the procedure outlined in its constitution and recompose its National Council.
Also joined to the suit, which was filed on June 18, 2014, is the National Chairman of the party, Mr Paul Afoko.
Among other reliefs, Mr Hoezame is seeking a declaration that the announcement of December 6, 2014 as the date for the election of the presidential candidate is null and void.
He is also seeking an order directed at the defendants to restore the constitution of the party to its original state and duly and properly set up the National Council in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, as well as an order restraining Mr Afoko from further breach of the party’s constitution.
Mr Hoezame, who, in his statement of claim, described himself as a fully paid up, card-bearing member of the NPP from 1992 up to date and still a card-bearing member, insisted that the Afoko-led executive had breached the NPP constitution by purporting to call for and take part in deliberations of the National Council without reconstituting it after they were elected into office in April 2014.
He also stated that as a constituency chairman of the NPP and aspiring to be elected to serve on the National Council of the party, he had waited in vain for the notice of poll to enable him to put himself up for election to be elected a regional representative on the National Council.
However, he was informed that a meeting had been held by a body purporting to be the party’s National Council and insisted that it was in breach of the NPP constitution, thereby jeopardising his determination to contest the election.
“Plaintiff further averred that Mr Afoko, in concert with other officers of the party, has called for a National Council meeting on June 19, 2014 to, among other issues, take a decision on the organisation of an election to choose the presidential candidate for the 2016 general election.
“Plaintiff averred that as of the date here of, the party has no National Council, since there has not been any process, in accordance with Article 7 (15) (iv), to elect regional representatives to serve on the National Council of the party,” he averred.
He stated that even though the National Council was not in place, the party had gone forward to fix a meeting on June 19 to “meet with certain individuals to take concrete decisions on the organisation and conduct of the said election of the presidential candidate”.
Mr Hoezame, however, stated in his writ that the constitution of the party spelt out clearly that decisions on the organisation of an election of a presidential candidate must be taken by the National Council of the party and not “certain individuals”.
He prayed the court that Article 9 (B) (2) of the party’s constitution expressly provided for the membership of the National Council, which included regional representatives, with the mandate to direct the affairs of the party.
He said the constitution clearly demonstrated how regional representatives should be members of the National Council to aid in the direction of the affairs of the party.
“That due to the absence of a National Council, there could be no process to organise and elect a presidential candidate,’’ he said .
He prayed the court to prevail on the first and second defendants that their action in fixing December 6 and a meeting on June 19 was against the spirit and letter of the party’s constitution.
The plaintiff averred that the behaviour of the defendants had put the entire party into a state of disarray and if the status quo was not restored, the NPP would disintegrate and the country might suffer for want of a viable alternative to the ruling party towards national development.
He explained in the writ that the party’s hard-won reputation as a party which believed in the rule of law had been put into disrepute and public ridicule.
Mr Hoezame, therefore, prayed the court to restrain the defendants, else their actions would set a precedent which would totally disintegrate the party because any member who found himself in an executive position could resort to such undemocratic and unconstitutional actions at his whims and caprices.
