[ 2012-08-17 ]

NDC followed due process in selecting Mahama; A rejoinder
I have read the name callings and derogatory
remarks being made about me by the General
Secretary of the NDC and the Propaganda Secretary
in their hopping about from one radio station to
another to justify the clear beach of Article 50
of the NDC Constitution and thereby Article 55(5)
of the 1992 Constitution, amongst others. The
reality is that Article 50 of the NDC Constitution
is clear and unambiguous when it states that:
“Where on any Party matter there is no provision
in this Constitution which deals with that matter,
the National Executive Committee shall, by the
REGULATIONS, provide for the matter to be dealt
with.” (Emphasis supplied).

The only power entrusted to the NEC under Article
50 is “BY REGULATIONS, PROVIDE FOR THE MATTER TO
BE DEALT WITH.” One of my arguments is that if the
NEC met on 25th July 2012 to exercise the residual
power under Article 50 then they had only one
mandatory duty – make REGULATIONS that will
provide for what they perceived was an omission in
the Constitution following the death of the
President. This is not a matter of law but simple
English. Article 50 does not give the NEC any
power to make DECISIONS for the party as to who is
the anointed flag bearer to be endorsed at a
future Congress.

I insist that the REGULATIONS under Article 50 are
rules of a Constitutional nature which have to be
formally enacted by the NEC and published to the
whole world for the benefit of citizens who are
members of the Party as to how the omission or gap
they allege exists in Article 44(a) is to be dealt
with. The NEC has no power under Article 50 to
amend Article 44(b) to (g) of the NDC Constitution
which provide for elections of a flag bearer
unless it followed the processes provided in
Article 46 of the NDC Constitution for
amendments.

This is why I stated in one of my arguments that:
“We are just a few days to the new date of 31st
August 2012 when the NDC National Congress will be
convened in Kumasi, the Ashanti regional capital,
at great Party and public expense to endorse the
transitional President as the only choice of the
strongest political elite, for the time being, in
control of the NDC as the Party's flag bearer for
the 2012 Elections. I am not aware of any
constitutional regulations pursuant to Article 50
the NEC has enacted to take care of whatever
omissions or perceived gaps there are in the NDC
Constitution.”

The General Secretary and the Propaganda Secretary
should simply tell Ghanaians when NEC, met, made
and published the REGULATIONS it was mandated to
enact by Article 50 of the NDC Constitution. This
will help the debate instead of resorting to the
defeatist position of calling me names to obscure
the important national and NDC Constitutional
issues raised in my statement.

My statement is intended to deepen democracy as
against impunity and should be seen as such and
countered by stronger arguments and ideas. Spins
and name calling have out lived their usefulness
and ought to be known by the General Secretary and
Propaganda Secretary by now. My statement has
nothing to do with President John Mahama as a
person as it is maliciously being reframed but
with respect for the 1992 Constitution and the NDC
Constitution.

I repeat that: “Any political party that does not
allow its members access to critical information
and rules that will affect the exercise of their
democratic right of choice of a flag bearer in a
democratic and transparent manner in accordance
with Article 55(5) of the Constitution will be
acting in a manner inconsistent with and in
contravention of the 1992 Constitution, and the
Party Constitution.” The difference between me and
some of my colleagues in the Government and the
NDC Executive is that I believe in the core and
fundamental values of the NDC as we formed it in
1992 while they are revisionist. It is only fair
that we disagree without calling each other
names.

Source - Martin A. B. K. Amidu

... go Back