Legal scholar and governance advocate Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare, popularly known as Kwaku Azar, has filed a case challenging the New Patriotic Party (NPP) over its decision to impose a GHS 4 million “development fee” on aspirants seeking to contest in the party’s upcoming January 31, 2026 presidential primary.

In a detailed statement addressed to the court, Prof. Azar argued that the fee constitutes an unconstitutional barrier to internal party democracy and violates the principles of fairness, inclusion, and non-discrimination guaranteed under Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.

He clarified that the case is not about the NPP’s right to charge reasonable nomination or filing fees, but about the legality and constitutionality of introducing an additional “development fee” that is unrelated to the administrative cost of running the contest.

According to documents filed, the NPP has asked each aspirant to pay GHS 100,000 for nomination forms, ₵500,000 for filing, and an additional GHS 4 million as a “development fee.”

Prof. Azar described the new fee as “a wealth-based barrier” that effectively sidelines capable but less wealthy candidates, thereby concentrating leadership opportunities in the hands of the elite.

“My Lords, this GHS 4 million fee is not party development; it is candidate elimination,” he wrote.

“It is an economic filter designed to predetermine leadership pools in a way that violates Article 55(5) and offends Article 296 of our Constitution.”

The case raises two key constitutional questions:

Whether the imposition of the GHS 4 million “development fee” violates Article 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution, which mandates that the internal organisation of political parties must conform to democratic principles, and

Whether the said fee is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to Article 296, which requires discretionary power to be exercised reasonably and in good faith.

Prof. Azar contends that Article 55(2) guarantees every citizen the right to join and participate in the activities of a political party without discrimination.

He argued that any rule that limits participation based on financial capacity undermines internal democracy and disenfranchises members.

Citing Article 12 of the NPP Constitution, which only mentions a “prescribed fee” for presidential aspirants, Prof. Azar maintained that the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) acted beyond its authority by introducing an additional “development fee.”

He added that the imposition of such a charge, unrelated to the cost of organising the primary, was disproportionate and unconstitutional.

Among other remedies, the applicant is seeking:

A declaration that the GHS 4 million fee is unconstitutional, null, and void;

An injunction restraining the NPP and its agents from enforcing or using the fee to disqualify aspirants;

A mandamus order directing the party to conduct its internal elections in accordance with the Constitution; and

Costs and other reliefs as the court may deem appropriate.

He also requested a protective order against harassment, calling on the court to restrain party members from “insulting, assaulting, or persecuting” him for opposing the fee.

Observers note that the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for how political parties structure their internal elections and raise funds in Ghana.

If successful, the suit could set a precedent for limiting the use of exorbitant financial requirements as criteria for political participation — an issue that has long drawn criticism from governance reform advocates.

As Prof. Azar concluded in his filing:

“This case is not about money; it is about fairness, democracy, and access.

Political leadership should be open to all qualified members — not just those who can afford to pay GHS 4 million.”