Stephen Donkor: NDC Exclusion Lawsuit Challenges General Secretary Nomination

• Stephen Donkor is suing the NDC and its Acting Director of Elections and IT, Mahdi Gibrill, over his exclusion from the General Secretary election.
• Donkor alleges that unauthorized changes to his online nomination portal login credentials prevented him from completing his application.
• He had paid the GH¢80,000 nomination fee and uploaded initial documents before losing access on November 6, 2026.
• Donkor seeks court orders to restore his portal access, declare his exclusion unlawful, and compel the party to process his nomination and vet him.
• His lawsuit cites Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution, which requires administrative bodies to act fairly and reasonably.

The outcome of this High Court case could establish a significant precedent regarding the accountability of political parties for their digital electoral processes and their adherence to constitutional fairness standards, particularly when technical glitches or alleged security breaches impede a candidate's ability to participate.

Stephen Donkor, an aspirant for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) General Secretary position, has initiated legal action against his own party and its Acting Director of Elections and IT, Mahdi Gibrill. The lawsuit, filed in the High Court in Accra, challenges Donkor's exclusion from the list of successful nominees for the party's internal elections. Donkor asserts that an unexplained and unauthorized change to his online nomination portal login credentials directly prevented him from completing the necessary filing process, despite having already paid the substantial GH¢80,000 nomination fee.

According to his detailed statement of claim, Donkor successfully began the nomination procedure, which included remitting the required fee and uploading his initial documents via the NDC's designated online platform. However, on the evening of November 6, 2026, he reportedly discovered that his login details had been altered without his knowledge or consent. This alleged security compromise, he contends, rendered him unable to access his account, thereby preventing him from retrieving and completing Forms A and C, which are mandatory for finalizing his nomination. Donkor has affirmed his readiness to submit these outstanding forms and participate in the vetting process, contingent on either the restoration of his portal access or the provision of an alternative method for submission.

In his legal petition, Stephen Donkor is seeking a series of specific remedies from the High Court. Primarily, he requests an order to set aside his exclusion from the nomination list and compel the NDC to either reinstate his access to the online nomination portal or establish an alternative mechanism for him to complete his application. A central tenet of his argument is that his exclusion is unlawful and directly contravenes Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution. This constitutional provision mandates that administrative bodies, including political parties in the conduct of their internal affairs, must act fairly and reasonably in their decision-making processes.

Donkor is further asking the court to issue a directive requiring both the NDC and Mahdi Gibrill to reconsider and process his nomination. This reconsideration, he argues, must be conducted in strict accordance with the party's established electoral guidelines, while also acknowledging the unique circumstances surrounding his alleged inability to access the online portal. Ultimately, he seeks an order compelling the party to proceed with his vetting for the General Secretary position once his nomination process has been successfully completed.

This legal challenge by Stephen Donkor against the NDC highlights critical issues concerning the integrity and fairness of internal political party elections, particularly in the digital age. The case underscores the potential vulnerabilities of online nomination systems and the paramount importance of secure and transparent administrative procedures. Donkor's reliance on Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution emphasizes the expectation that even internal party mechanisms must adhere to broader principles of administrative justice, ensuring that aspirants are treated equitably and reasonably.

The outcome of this High Court case could establish a significant precedent regarding the accountability of political parties for their digital electoral processes and their adherence to constitutional fairness standards, particularly when technical glitches or alleged security breaches impede a candidate's ability to participate.

This case underscores the legal risks for political parties and organizations managing internal elections, particularly regarding the integrity of digital nomination processes and adherence to due process. Lawyers advising such entities should review their electoral guidelines and digital platforms to ensure robust security, transparency, and compliance with constitutional principles like Article 23, to mitigate potential legal challenges from aggrieved aspirants.

Source: Original reporting via myjoyonline.com